I am not sure if this helps the vote, but I would like to do some testing of 1.6.2 with some existing production web applications next week.
regards Malcolm Edgar On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Nathan Bubna <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Byron Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:22 , Claude Brisson wrote: > > > >> Rather confusing vote indeed... half of the votes ended up on the > >> private list, and there was a conditional vote. > >> > >> I think we should just cc the votes to the private list so that busy > >> people see it, but dev should stay the main list for votes. > >> > >> I got: > >> > >> +1 from Henning > >> +1 from Will > >> (conditional) +1 from Nathan > >> > >> Byron didn't vote but expressed some reserves (please, next time, > >> express an integer opinion :-) ) > > > > Sorry, I should have been more clear, my vote would have been +0 for what > it > > matters now. I wasn't sure if issue 681 affected the very process of > voting. > > Nope. It can affect votes, but there's nothing requiring issues to be > resolved for a release. To do a release, technically you just need a > positive (more +1 than -1) vote total with at least 3 PMC +1s being > the minimum and a willing and able release manager. In practice, > we've never released if any committer or PMC member voted -1, and > we've definitely left unresolved issues before. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
