Peter, I think that there might be a consensus for publishing 3.0 and then considering security patches against it.
Bryan ---- Bryan Thompson Chief Scientist & Founder SYSTAP, LLC 4501 Tower Road Greensboro, NC 27410 br...@systap.com http://blazegraph.com http://blog.blazegraph.com Blazegraph™ <http://www.blazegraph.com/> is our ultra high-performance graph database that supports both RDF/SPARQL and Tinkerpop/Blueprints APIs. Blazegraph is now available with GPU acceleration using our disruptive technology to accelerate data-parallel graph analytics and graph query. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and its contents and attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and are confidential or proprietary to SYSTAP. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination or copying of this email or its contents or attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply email and permanently delete all copies of the email and its contents and attachments. On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 10:31 AM, James Hurley <jim.hur...@icloud.com> wrote: > +1 > > -Jim > > On Jan 06, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > > Please, please cancel this. > > We do need to have a serious discussion of River future direction. I > expect that discussion to take a lot longer than a week, and hope it > will involve as many users and potential users of River as possible. For > example, we may need to canvas other project mailing lists to find out > whether a River with specific changes would be useful to them. > > It will certainly take me more than a week to study the subject, and the > various opinions about it, sufficiently to be prepared to vote. > > I feel, very strongly, that we need to get River 3.0 out the door ASAP. > Even with enough time for proper study, holding the River future > discussion first will inevitably distract from that objective and delay > the release. I thought that was also the PMC consensus. > > My preferred plan is get existing changes out as River 3.0 first, then > discussion and study, then vote on future direction. I am sorely tempted > to resign if this premature vote goes ahead, regardless of the outcome, > but will not because I don't think such threats are an appropriate way > of influencing PMC votes. > > Patricia > > On 1/6/2016 4:21 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote: > > Option 1. I propose that we take security seriously, no security patches > are to be rejected prior to review, that we review and analyse them > properly based on merit. That discussions about security issues be taken > seriously. > > > Option 2. Alternatively I resign my River committer status > > > Please cast your vote, the vote is open for 7 days. > > > Let the community decide. > > > Regards, > > > Peter > > > Sent from my Samsung device. > > > >
