On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 12:31 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 26 October 2013 12:02, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 11:42:06AM +0100, sebb wrote: > >> On 22 October 2013 19:32, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents AsyncClient > >> > 4.0. The vote is open for the at least 72 hours, and only votes from > >> > HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at least > >> > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 votes. > >> > > >> > Packages: > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpasyncclient-4.0-RC2 > >> > revision 3323 > >> > > >> > Release notes: > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpcomponents/httpasyncclient-4.0-RC2/RELEASE_NOTES-4.0.x.txt > >> > > >> > Maven artefacts: > >> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehttpcomponents-020/org/apache/httpcomponents/ > >> > > >> > SVN tag: > >> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpcomponents/httpasyncclient/tags/4.0-RC2 > >> > revision 1534621 > >> > > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > Vote: HttpComponents AsyncClient 4.0 release > >> > [ ] +1 Release the packages as HttpComponents AsyncClient 4.0. > >> > [X] -1 I am against releasing the packages (must include a reason). > >> > >> Clirr reports errors in both httpasyncclient and httpasyncclient-cache. > >> > >> I think these need to be investigated and addressed indivually. > >> Either by fixing the incompatibility, or by establishing that a > >> particular change is not likely to be a problem in practice and > >> documenting it in the release notes. > >> > >> The previous release was a beta release, not alpha, so compatibility > >> ought to be maintained. > >> > > > > Sebastian, > > > > This release is expected by Apache CXF and Spring and a fairly substantial > > number of individual users who are no less important. I do make my very > > best to accommodate to your wishes and demands and in other circumstances > > would comply with them as many times before. In this case though I will > > have to seek the required majority of votes to secure the release. > > This is not my personal demand. > I'm trying to make sure that we don't break 3rd party applications > unnecessarily. >
By doing what exactly? By blocking the first GA release that tries to establish a stable API baseline? There is _nothing_ that mandates full binary compatibility between BETA releases, especially for a x.0 product. I kept RC1 vote open for about a week fully anticipating some random stuff from you like blank lines in license / notice files. There was ample of time to make whatever adjustments to the release that you deemed necessary. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
