Due to the fact that the release artifacts are not distributed yet i
suggest that we simply start a (new) incubator vote for the release
to resolve the idleness regarding the release process and separate the
general discussion (if necessary) into another thread.
Is that feasible ?
Thanks
Hendrik
Yes absolutely.
Le mar. 18 nov. 2014 10:33, Hendrik Dev hendrikde...@gmail.com a écrit :
Due to the fact that the release artifacts are not distributed yet i
suggest that we simply start a (new) incubator vote for the release
to resolve the idleness regarding the release process and separate
If you feel that there is something more to discuss regarding the release
process, please feel free to start another thread for it. Please do create
a vote thread.
John
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:31 AM, Hendrik Dev hendrikde...@gmail.com wrote:
Due to the fact that the release artifacts are
suggest we get this straight to prevent further confusion.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
From: Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 17 November 2014, 6:41
Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Johnzon 0.2-incubating release
Hi
Hi,
The IPMCs in the dev@ list should recast its +1 vote in the general
list to be accounted for.
Which is not in line in previous advice given on the list, for instance see
last BatchEE release..
What are other IPMC views on this? Happy to do it either way, but IMO .an extra
VOTE seems
Justin,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com
wrote:
Hi,
The IPMCs in the dev@ list should recast its +1 vote in the general
list to be accounted for.
Which is not in line in previous advice given on the list, for instance
see last BatchEE release..
HI,
Are you referring to this email, about the alternate voting rule? [1]
No, just that it already has 3 +1 IPMC votes. Advice given before on this list
said you don't need to call a vote in that case but just notify the list.
Thanks,
Justin
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
Previously there was a clear rule
1.) do the internal vote and if that succeeds
2.) do another VOTE on the general@incubator list.
That's still the rule.
The wider Incubator PMC must be given full opportunity to review
This vote pass (either for the project and the incubator) with
* Three binding +1 votes from Justin McClean, Romain Manni-Bucau and
Mark Struberg
* Two non-binding +1 votes
* No -1 votes
Project vote: http://markmail.org/thread/okwf7wpczerz2cq6
@general: This is just to inform the incubator
Hendrik,
That's not how it works at all. Please review [1].
John
[1]: http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Hendrik Dev hendrikde...@gmail.com wrote:
This vote pass (either for the project and the incubator) with
* Three
Hi,
That's not how it works at all. Please review [1].
Looks correct to me as there is already 3 +1 incubator PCM binding votes. What
would you expect in this situation?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
A little bit formality but the idea is that the IPMC that voted in the
dev@ list act in the capacity of PPMCs.
Sending formal request to general@ list to make sure other IPMCs could
add additional pair of eyes to review the releases:
... then the Podling SHALL send a summary of that vote to the
12 matches
Mail list logo
