'cos I didn't know that was an option? =) people.a.o is back, fwiw.
A. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Olivier Lamy <[email protected]> wrote: > I will but when people.a.o will be back. > Why not using svnpubsub for vote ? > > 2013/6/3 Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>: > > And FYI, I'd be very, very appreciative of any mentors who can review RC2 > > and vote. > > > > And I'm +1 binding, PPMC. > > > > A. > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> My tendency in this direction was prompted by David and others pointing > >> out that the release commit for RC0 wasn't actually pushed to the 1.6.x > >> branch. That does seem like poor form, even though the tag was pushed. > I'm > >> definitely open to advice and suggestions on this - I've got experience > >> with the release plugin, and I've got experience with iterating RCs for > ASF > >> votes, but I don't have experience meshing the two. =) > >> > >> A. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Andrew Phillips <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >> Re the difference with the rc0 commit and now - experience. The > revert > >> commits are so I could run the release plugin again for the next RC, > and I > >> didn't do the reverts until I cut the RC. I'm still figuring out the > best > >> way to do RCs Apache-style combined with the Maven release plugin... > >> > > >> > Cool, thanks for the explanation. I'm assuming from that that you feel > >> the "prepare-then-revert" style is preferred (vs. the > >> "prepare-locally-and-dont-commit"). > >> > > >> > Fine with me, although I'd be interested to know what the thoughts are > >> around having multiple commits between the "prepare" and the "revert", > all > >> of which have a "release" version in their POMs. > >> > > >> > @mentors: any guidance you can contribute here? > >> > > >> > Thanks! > >> > > >> > ap > >> > > > > -- > Olivier Lamy > Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy >
