> On 15 Aug 2015, at 1:11 am, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > > With regard to what release votes are supposed to reflect, pre-voting makes > absolutely no sense to me. The ballots cast should follow a critical review > of the *specific* release candidate. > > I have said all I need to say about this.
Maybe voting is not the best term to use for this period. The way I understood it was a chance to hammer out last minute issues (like the line ending problem I just mentioned) and once the all the issues I’ve found have been sorted out, I give my +1. Keep in mind that release candidates differ slightly from other things we normally vote on, because there’s sometimes obvious technical problems (code not compiling, tests failing) that are not controversial, and are a matter of fixing and issuing a new release candidate. If you have a suggestion for a less ambiguous term we could use so that individuals can express the notion that all the problems they have found/care about have now been fixed, I would be happy for us to change to using that term instead. What is the typical practice on other ASF projects? — Dr Peter M. Kelly pmke...@apache.org PGP key: http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key <http://www.kellypmk.net/pgp-key> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)
