Ah sorry yes you are right, podlings do however often combine PMC and committer ‘status’ hence my reference (committer automatically also being a PMC). It was a call to arms basically to anyone who could vote binding. That seems to be working a bit ;-)
B. Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad > Op 12 aug. 2019 om 21:08 heeft Alan Gates <alanfga...@gmail.com> het volgende > geschreven: > > Ville is right, only PMC votes count for release, as the PMC is the group > delegated from the board to manage a project. > > In the case of podling the PPMC's[1] vote is advisory and the Incubator PMC > (IPMC) is the legally binding vote, but mentors and the IPMC look to the > PPMC's vote as they assume the PPMC knows more about the project and as > it's good practice for the PPMC, since they will someday be the PMC for the > project. > > So we need 3 PPMC votes, of which mentor votes count. We have 2 currently > (me and Max). Then we'll need 3 from the IPMC (again mentor votes count > here). > > Alan. > > 1. PPMC stands for Podling PMC, or Practice PMC if you prefer. > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Ville Brofeldt <ville.v.brofe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> It's my understanding that only PMC members can cast binding votes. Hence >> my non-binding vote (committer, not PMC member). Ville >> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 20:08 Bolke de Bruin <bdbr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> We need binding votes from the committers... 3 being the minimum. Its >>> common to make it clear that you are either voting binding or non >> binding. >>> Binding votes can only be cast by committers. >>> >>> This is my +1, NON-binding. >>> >>> Bolke >>> >>> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad >>> >>>> Op 10 aug. 2019 om 06:16 heeft Ville Brofeldt < >>> ville.v.brofe...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I believe this is a good point in time to cut the 0.34 release, as >> there >>>> have been numerous important bugfixes and features introduced since >> 0.33, >>>> with especially important license housekeeping in the form of removal >> of >>>> requests (thanks Gianluca!) and FOSSA CI (thanks Max!). So would like >> to >>>> extend my non-binding +1 to this. Fingers crossed! >>>> >>>> Ville >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:36 PM Maxime Beauchemin < >>> maximebeauche...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> The source release 0.34.0 RC1 for Apache Superset is baked and >> available >>>>> at: >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/superset/, public >>>>> keys are available >>>>> at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/superset/KEYS >>>>> >>>>> We're using the 0.34 branch as the base for this first ASF release as >>>>> opposed to 0.33 in previous attempts. I think all license-related >> issues >>>>> have been ironed out in our dependency, here's the FOSSA report >>>>> < >>>>> >>> >> https://app.fossa.com/projects/custom+11342%2f...@github.com:apache%2Fincubator-superset.git/refs/branch/0.34/a04fad858644466219b7ea399aead110cb8ea655 >>>>>> >>>>> . *We're still ironing out our release process, so please bear with us >>> and >>>>> help if you can*. >>>>> >>>>> As I went along, I documented the process in [yet-to-be-merged] >>>>> RELEASING/README.md in the repo, latest edits here # >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-superset/pull/8016>8016 >>>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-superset/pull/8016>. As part of >>>>> `RELEASING/`, we ship docker files to help test releases in a >>> reproducible >>>>> way. >>>>> >>>>> For context the `0.34` release branch was cut at SHA 9233a63, that was >>>>> merged on master on Aug 8th 2019. From that common ancestor, the >>> following >>>>> list of commit was added as cherry-picks. The SHAs in the list bellow >>>>> reference the cherries on the release branch, PR number are available >> to >>>>> get more details. >>>>> >>>>> <no cherries yet on the 0.34 branch> >>>>> >>> >>> >>
