We CAN NOT use lazy consensus for releases (and we should have made it more clear that the project had not voted on the RCs when announcing them on the users@ list).
ASF Release Policy requires three +1 votes from people who have *installed and tested* the software. Would everyone please read the ASF release policy (in particular the "What is a release?" and "Release Management Questions" sections) before cutting any more tarballs: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html Regards, Daryl On 15/01/2010 4:26 PM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > Fyi it's a holiday weekend in the US. Using lazy concensus now might be > better done starting sunday or monday. > > --- Original Message --- > From:Justin Mason <[email protected]> > Sent:Fri 1/15/10 3:45 pm > To:Warren Togami <[email protected]> > Cc:Justin Mason <[email protected]>,SpamAssassin Dev > <[email protected]> > Subj:Re: PROPOSED 3.3.0-rc3 > > On Friday, January 15, 2010, Warren Togami <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 01/15/2010 11:13 AM, Warren Togami wrote: >> >> >> -1 >> >> Even though my rc3 was unofficial, it is entirely uncool from packager >> perspective to reuse names. Names are meaningless and cheap. This should >> have been named rc4. >> >> Furthermore I am unconvinced that we should change the "use bytes" thing >> at this last minute. It has been going on since early 3.2.x and we're >> fixing it only at the last moment before 3.3.0? This seems unsafe. >> >> Could someone provide a sample message that takes an obscene amount of >> time? >> >> Warren >> >> >> Furthermore, what is releasing an official rc3 at this point going to gain >> us, especially if it will take 3 days to become an official release? > > BTW I think I need to clarify. ANY release will take 3 days from > tarball cutting to become an official release -- 72 hours to provide > time for -1 votes. That is ASF protocol on releases. >
