Anthony, I did not realize this at first, but it’s good practice to have the vote thread prefixed with [VOTE] Then do a [RESULTS] thread with the tally.
Then do a tally at the end. Did we get 3 +1 (binding) votes ? if not we cannot release. > On Dec 16, 2015, at 2:51 AM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks, vote is now closed. > > Proceeding with release of .20.0 > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:34 AM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Everyone, >> >> Please can everyone cast their vote today or tomorrow on the release of >> .20.0 as communicated in the prior email. >> >> Thanks, >> Anthony >> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:03 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> +1 for moving to 1.0.0. I was chuckling yesterday that Putty is still >>> v0.69. >>> >>> Sent from Outlook Mobile <https://aka.ms/qtex0l> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:14 PM -0800, "Tomaz Muraus" <to...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Sebastien Goasguen >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to propose keeping the tag as is and moving this into the next >>>>>> release as a minor (0.21.0) >>>>> >>>> >>>> I proposed to use 0.21.0 instead of 0.20.0 since the enum int to string >>>> change is backward incompatible in some scenarios. >>>> >>>> On a related note - we should really just pull the switch and call one of >>>> the next releases 1.0.0. Then we can better follow semantic versioning :) >>>> >>>> >>
