Hi there, I also agree with both of you. I still think it would be better to not split the "app" in an extra project. But I wanted not to block robert, maybe it was a fault maybe not...
I just hope we can have the license "review tool" soon and re-integrate the stuff later. Bye, Norman 2011/7/11 Bernd Fondermann <[email protected]>: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 20:50, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote: >> 2011/7/11 Bernd Fondermann <[email protected]>: >>> My interpretation is that technically this vote is about the >>> james/server/trunk code at rev 1145273, as is currently contained in >>> (and per convention this will never change) >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/tags/james-server-3.0-beta2/ >> >> That was my interpretation, too (BTW the convention is not enforced >> and in past we removed and recreated tags after failed votes, and >> that's why I prefer to not reroll releases but skip to the next >> version number) >> >> I preferred the way we voted in the past years where we always >> released a source package and voted that package (and in past I've >> been told this is also the apache policy, so I don't see why we should >> change it now). >> >> Note I'm not vetoing the release, I'm just reporting my concerns. > > I agree that it's not good if PMC members feel it's too hard to take > part in a release vote. > > Bernd > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
