No worries, Eric.. we're going with submitting RC5 and noting this issue and workaround in the release notes..
-dan On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> >>>> >>> >> >
