Is it serious enough that we should redo the release? ==================== Jordan Zimmerman
> On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:46 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +0 > > FYI, I just pushed a fix to the new TreeCache. It wasn't properly handling > the case where the root node was deleted then re-created, which seems > pretty problematic for the single-node (max depth 0) case. > >> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Jay Zarfoss <zarf...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Eric Tschetter <eched...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Cameron McKenzie >>> <mckenzie....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Tests are all good for me now. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Jordan Zimmerman < >> randg...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> This is the 2nd vote for Apache Curator version 2.7.1 >>>>> >>>>> *** Please download, test and vote within approx. 72 hours >>>>> >>>>> Note that we are voting upon the source (tag) and binaries are >>>>> provided for convenience. >>>>> >>>>> Link to release notes: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12328938 >>>>> >>>>> Staging repo: >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.7.1/ >>>>> >>>>> Binary artifacts: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1009/ >>>>> >>>>> The tag to be voted upon: >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=ba9fb60c5463e21199cb8719cc537ccf8a7f2a1e >>>>> >>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: >>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS >>>>> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>
