Thanks for doing this, Andrew. I did a spot check of the docs and
they're the right ones (10.3).
Should the copyright files in each doc be updated to say "2004-2008"
instead of 2007?
Kim Haase
Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:46 PM, Knut Anders Hatlen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, my 'test candidate' is up at:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~fuzzylogic/10.3.3.0/
Wow, that was quick! :)
I'm afraid I'm not able to access the files. Perhaps you forgot to make
them world readable?
I thought I checked this, but maybe I had no problem accessing them
via the web because it's my account. Chmod'ed the files all public
just to be sure. Note no signatures, version number is wrong, etc. I
was just trying to make sure I didn't miss something generating the
files. The candidate I post a vote for will be a real candidate.
Thanks! Some small nits after looking at CHANGES.html:
The first issue mentioned (DERBY-3641) has resolution "duplicate". I
removed the fix version in that issue so that it won't appear in your
next search. It's probably a good idea to update the filter so that it
only shows fixed issues.
What about issues that were reported against 10.3.2.2 and fixed in
10.3.2.2? Should we remove them from the list? For instance, DERBY-3560
fixed a build failure that was introduced on the 10.3 branch after the
previous release. Since this bug never was present in an official
release, it's probably not that interesting to the users.
The only problem I see with a 72-hour vote, is that the bylaws of the DB
PMC[1] require at least 7 days, unless a majority of the PMC members
have voted +1 (or -1) before that:
The minimum and default requirement for a passing vote is simple
majority of PMC members casting ballots. The default voting period is
10 days and the minimum is 7 days unless the success or failure is
arithmetically known.
[1] http://db.apache.org/management.html
Yes, that is the policy, isn't it. :-)
I'm afraid so. But the Apache guidelines only say that "[votes] should
generally be permitted to run for at least 72 hours to provide an
opportunity for all concerned persons to participate regardless of their
geographic locations." (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html) So
there's nothing preventing the DB PMC from allowing a voting period
shorter than 7 days. I think this has been brought up in the PMC before,
but no decision was made as far as I remember.
I have no problem calling for a vote Friday, May 2, or thereabouts,
and ending it and announcing it on the Monday ten days later, May 12
if there are no issues that come up and everyone is ok with the
release. I'm hoping to get consensus earlier rather than later, and to
avoid publishing an announcement near a weekend.
Sounds like a good plan. I didn't want to push you to having a voting
period longer than the minimum, but I see your point about not
announcing the release near a weekend.
