Josh Elser wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 2 May 2016 at 15:00, Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> wrote:
> Also, please re-read the end of the previous thread on compatibility.
>
> I clearly stated that there were some changes which I consider not
worth
> changing about the TarArchiveEntry code. If you feel like these are
not
> acceptable, please start a discussion about this so you can come to
> consensus on how the changes should be addressed.
The release vote mail really needs to include all the release-specific
information that the reviewer needs to do the review.
If there are caveats etc relating to the Clirr report these need to be
included in the vote mail.
Both to make it easier for the reviewers, and for the historical
record to show that these items were considered.
Ok, this was not made clear to me. Thank you for letting me know. I'd
encourage you to update your project's website. For other projects, I
assume that those voting would have the context from previous
discussions, but acknowledge that this is not how commons operates.
Sebb -- would addressing these points in the release notes cause you to
change your -1 to a +1? I'd like to make all the changes I can ASAP and
roll the next RC. Because I haven't said it explicitly -- thanks for
taking the time to give all of the feedback that you have already.
Everyone else -- even though Sebb voted -1 on rc0, I would greatly
appreciate if everyone could still look through rc0 and give any more
feedback which would keep you from a +1.
Thanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
