Lets consider the thread terminated :-) Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, Kevin Minder <[email protected]> wrote: > OK. I see. The [DISCUSS] is enough to create the RC and the [VOTE] is for > approval of the RC. I assumed we were voting to ensure that everyone agreed > we should even create an RC. So I'll get busy and create the RC and then > call for a vote. > > What is the proper way to terminate this thread. I'm assuming it will take > me a few days to properly create the RC. > > On 3/29/13 12:04 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: >> Hey Kevin, you basically need two steps. One a DISCUSS thread where >> you propose making a release, and (assuming folks agree) another a >> VOTE thread on a staged RC candidate. People (PPMC & IPMC) should try >> out the release and do the various RC checks, and then vote. If the >> vote passes make the release official.. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Mar 29, 2013, at 8:49 AM, Kevin Minder <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I still don't understand. I thought I... >>> >>> 1. Started a [DISCUSS] thread on Wednesday. >>> 2. Waited 24 hours for feedback and didn't get anything negative. >>> 3. Started this [VOTE] thread on Thursday >>> 4. As indicated in the initial [VOTE] email, will wait until Monday for >>> vote results. >>> 5. If the vote passes, Monday I will start creating, signing and >>> staging the first RC. >>> >>> Specifically other than my blunders earlier in the month I have not created >>> a RC yet because the vote hasn't passed. >>> Just trying to understand my mistakes so as to not repeat them. >>> >>> >>> On 3/29/13 12:53 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: >>>> Hey Kevin, >>>> >>>> Sorry I was unclear. I meant, making the actual release candidate, >>>> and then calling the VOTE on its release. I didn't mean calling the >>>> VOTE to decide whether or not to make the RC. >>>> >>>> My bad, should have been specific. >>>> >>>> Thanks for all of your effort! >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >>>> Senior Computer Scientist >>>> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >>>> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 >>>> Email: [email protected] >>>> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department >>>> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kevin Minder <[email protected]> >>>> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Date: Thursday, March 28, 2013 2:59 PM >>>> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Create an Apache Knox Gateway 0.2.0 release >>>> >>>>> I sent the [DISCUSS] yesterday and Chris suggested waiting 24 hours and >>>>> calling a vote which is exactly what I did. What am I missing? >>>>> >>>>> On 3/28/13 4:36 PM, Devaraj Das wrote: >>>>>> Well this could have been a discussion.. But in any case, +1. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Minder >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to propose creating a Knox 0.2.0 release. My reasons for >>>>>>> wanting a release at this time are: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) We won't know for certain what is required for a release until we >>>>>>> try >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> 2) The incubation docs recommend to release as soon as possible. >>>>>>> 3) We have external people interested in finding out more about Knox. >>>>>>> 4) I hope a release can help us recruit more external contributors. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote will close on Monday, April 1st at 1pmPT/4pmET. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [ ] +1 Create an Apache Knox Gateway 0.2.0 release >>>>>>> [ ] +0 Don't care. >>>>>>> [ ] -1 Don't create an Apache Knox Gateway 0.2.0 release because... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kevin. >
