Hi All,
I would like to call for a vote of second release candidate for Apache
Hadoop Development Tools (incubating), version 0.0.2.incubating. The vote
has happened of the dev mailing list and the community has approved the
second release candidate(RC1) for Apache Hadoop Development Tools
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Rahul Sharma rahul0...@gmail.com wrote:
...Vote Result :
http://apache.markmail.org/message/l3ypavj4rnm2fnwv ...
I don't see votes from your mentors there, you might want to ask them
to review this release.
-Bertrand
+1 (binding)
Arun
On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept Argus as a
new Incubator project.
The proposal draft is available at:
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ArgusProposal, and is also
We've held a vote on blur-dev to release the 0.2.3-incubating version of
Apache Blur.
The vote thread can be found here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-blur-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAB6tTr0kZyjp82m%3DWO%3Di_8-%3DLQV5Hz13AB6dQ0%3DrDc93iBCjeg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
The vote passed
HI,
2 x +1 binding votes
2 x +1 non-binding votes
Aren't IPMC votes binding so that would be 4 +1 binding votes?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
HI,
2 x +1 binding votes
2 x +1 non-binding votes
Aren't IPMC votes binding so that would be 4 +1 binding votes?
Hi Justin,
Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
you're referring to.
Hi
Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the
mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes.
I may be mistaken but I thought it required 3 +1 binding votes on the podling
dev list and then 3 +1 IPMC
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
Hi
Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the
mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes.
I may be mistaken but I
Hi,
It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
think the Aaron was precise in his usage of +1 votes and +1 binding
votes. Mine and
We have requested the mentors. Also we could some help from IPMC.
regards
Rahul
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Rahul Sharma rahul0...@gmail.com wrote:
I would request the mentors to have a look at the artifacts.
thanks,
Rahul
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Justin Mclean
jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
Hi,
It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 2014-07-23 22:32, Arun Murthy wrote:
+1 (binding)
Arun
On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Owen O'Malley omal...@apache.org wrote:
Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept Argus
as a
new Incubator project.
The proposal draft is available at:
Hi,
Honestly, I'm not sure what the canonical place for you to look up
PPMC members
IMO that's needed to review votes.
Are you interested in helping review/vote on our release or just
debating the incubator policy stuffs?
I'm just looking at it now. Sorry for polluting the VOTE thread.
HI,
+1 binding
- vote correct (I assume so)
- md5 and signatures correct
- incubating in artefact name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE correct (but a couple of minor things see below)
- no binary files in source release
- all source files have correct headers
- can compile from source
14 matches
Mail list logo
