I revised my vote to +1.

It turned out that 12443 is not new (happens on 10.0.x as well), and 12445
only affects tests. These should be fixed sooner than later, but I don't
think these are blockers.


On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 12:00 PM Masakazu Kitajo <mas...@apache.org> wrote:

> I tested it on Debian 13, and I have to throw -0.
>
> There are two concerning issues. Although these may not be really issues,
> I'm personally not confident enough to make a release. I'm not going to
> block the release if someone can confirm that these are not serious issues.
> https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/issues/12443
> https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/issues/12445
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 4:39 AM Chris McFarlen <ch...@mcfarlen.us> wrote:
>
>> RC0 was missing one commit and some important documentation updates.
>> See https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/commits/10.1.x/ for new
>> commit details.
>>
>> The release notes are available at:
>>
>>   https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/milestone/74?closed=1
>>
>> https://docs.trafficserver.apache.org/en/latest/release-notes/whats-new.en.html
>>
>> or for a brief ChangeLog:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/trafficserver/blob/10.1.x/CHANGELOG-10.1.0
>>
>> The artifacts are available for download at:
>>
>>         https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/trafficserver/10.1.0
>>
>> SHA512 checksum:
>>
>>
>> bb1d9c4611abb677154e64a3603be848923fb937eaf4ce7196ca1ff2472c559a0513dd19fad0f7d94b52de72c65746bbae807551f3549f58d15d46702b228de5
>>
>> This corresponds to git refs:
>>
>>   Hash: 0ee9fb05f2eaa0d8a4e8c021d42c8bed468dc781
>>   Tag: 10.1.0-rc1
>>
>> Which can be verified with the following command:
>>
>>       $ git tag -v 10.1.0-rc1
>>
>> All code signing keys are available here:
>>
>>       https://downloads.apache.org/trafficserver/KEYS
>>
>> Make sure you refresh from a key server to get all relevant signatures
>>
>> Please test and cast your votes as early as possible.
>>
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> Sent with Proton Mail <https://proton.me/mail/home> secure email.
>>
>

Reply via email to