+1 After some digging, the PPMC VOTE looks good.
-Taylor On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:01 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> wrote: > A few notes that come to mind: > > - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted. > - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a > link? > - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link > would help. > > I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point > them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult. > > Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to > review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 > votes. > > -Taylor > > On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0. >> >> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release. >> >> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes >> are from the IPMC members) >> >> 2 +1 (IPMC) >> 5 +1 (PPMC) >> >> The dev list voting thread: >> http://s.apache.org/N5N >> >> All release artifacts have been uploaded here: >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/ >> >> Please start voting. >> >> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release >> 0 - don't care either way >> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why) >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
