hint: put junit-addons into shared, kick off vote on shared 1.0-m1 release, avoid 2 72 hour periods.
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/9/11 4:34 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Stefan Seelmann<[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> I'd like to release the first version of our JUnit Add-ons. >>> >>> The JUnit Add-ons contain helpers for concurrent unit test that are >>> used only internally. >>> >>> Please note that it includes source files copied from [3], licensed >>> under ALv2. According to [4] the original copyright notice and license >>> header is unchanged. Attribution has been added to NOTICE and LICENSE >>> file. >>> >>> The tag can be found at [1], the staging repository can be found at [2]. >>> >>> I'll continue to release the staging repository after the grace period >>> of 4 hours. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Stefan >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/directory/buildtools/junit-addons/tags/0.1/ >>> [2] >>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedirectory-046/ >>> [3] >>> http://code.google.com/p/mycila/source/browse/mycila-junit/tags/mycila-junit-1.0.ga/src/main/java/com/mycila/junit/concurrent >>> [4] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party >>> >> Hold on a second. We need a formal vote on this! >> >> The 4 hour exception to the 72 hour vote process is just for the TLP >> pom. The TLP pom does not have the same legal requirements as a >> standard src/bin release artifact. >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html >> >> There needs to be a review of the release artifact and the 72 vote >> period is mandatory. I'm really sorry to say this but we have to roll >> back this release and follow the standard operating procedures. > > I'm afraid Alex is right, for code releases. > > We probably need a vote plus a 72h delay. > > Question : can we ask for a vote and 72h delay with the existing released > project, and if we do not reach a consensus (ie, 3 +1 and +1 > -1) then we > rollback ? > > -- > Regards, > Cordialement, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > >
