Hi all,
Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Johnzon
0.2-incubating.
This will be the second incubator release for Johnzon.
The project vote on the dev list is here:
http://markmail.org/thread/okwf7wpczerz2cq6
Vote result:
3 binding +1 votes
2 non-binding +1 votes
No -1 vot
+1
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-11-18 15:54 GMT+01:00 Hendrik Dev :
> Hi all,
>
> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Johnzon
> 0.2-incubating.
> This will be the second incub
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
+1 (binding)
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Hendrik Dev
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 15:54
> Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Johnzon 0.2-incubating
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please vote on
It looks like johnzon has a dependency on a dual licensed CDDL/GPL library,
should that be in the notice file perhaps?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Hendrik Dev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Johnzon
> 0.2-incubating.
> This will be the secon
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> It looks like johnzon has a dependency on a dual licensed CDDL/GPL library,
> should that be in the notice file perhaps?
That wouldn't apply to the official source release, assuming the
CDDL/GPL library is not bundled with the source artifac
Hi All,
this vote passed with:
Three +1 binding votes from Justin Mclean, Mark Struberg and Romain Manni-Bucau.
There were no 0 or -1 votes.
Thanks
Kind regards
Hendrik
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Hendrik Dev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache
+1
Le mar. 18 nov. 2014 18:27, Marvin Humphrey a
écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > It looks like johnzon has a dependency on a dual licensed CDDL/GPL
> library,
> > should that be in the notice file perhaps?
>
> That wouldn't apply to the official source rele
