Sorry for the second email, but I just wanted to clarify that +1 did not include a judgment on the Riak bug.
I wasn’t trying to say we should release with it, will leave that decision to others. —Eric > On Dec 22, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > +1 on RC5 too > >> On Dec 21, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Jan van Doorn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm sticking with my +1 as well. >> >> Rgds, >> JvD >> >>> On Dec 21, 2016, at 11:44, David Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I spot checked a few files that were missing license headers in RC4 and the >>> license was there. Since the only thing that changes between RCs was the >>> license files, I am going to rely on my original testing and vote +1. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Dan Kirkwood <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> One correction: The signed source tarball and checksums are available here: >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC5/ >>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC5/> >>> >> >
