Hi Gary,
In the vote process (in ASF), the count of +1 doesn't matter, only -1
vote (veto) are blocker for the vote. So no need the 3rd +1 (binding)
(even if will be better)
If the number of binding vote is too small (2 votes versus 5 PMC
members), after the 72 hours vote period (or more time), the lazy
consensus should use (I suppose), otherwise the release will never done.
Milamber
On 29/03/2023 12:20, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 8:04 AM Milamber <milam...@apache.org
<mailto:milam...@apache.org>> wrote:
On 29/03/2023 11:49, Gary Gregory wrote:
Ah! Please accept my apologies!
👍
So, with last email from Mukul, just need to have the [RESULT]
vote mail from Mukul to officially have the new xalan release!
Where is the 3rd binding vote? I might have missed it. The result
email will list all votes.
Gary
Thanks for the contributors (Joseph, Mukul, etc.)
Milamber
Gary
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 06:52 Milamber <milam...@apache.org
<mailto:milam...@apache.org>> wrote:
Hi,
On vote call, Mukul have add this line at the end of mail:
Great work everyone. Here's my +1 for this RC.
So two +1 for this vote (you and Mukul)
Milamber
On 29/03/2023 10:37, Gary Gregory wrote:
I count one +1 vote (from me). Mukul still has to officially
reply with a +1 if he so desires to vote even though he
called the vote.
Gary
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, 06:33 Milamber <milam...@apache.org
<mailto:milam...@apache.org>> wrote:
Hi,
I count 2 +1 from PMC member. The vote can passes
because no veto (-1
vote) and perhaps this vote is on under the lazy
consensus way?
https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
"Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of
majority rule
unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more
favourable votes
than unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have
passed --
regardless of the number of votes in each category. (If
the number of
votes seems too small to be representative of a
community consensus, the
issue is typically not pursued. However, see the
description of lazy
consensus for a modifying factor.)"
Milamber
On 29/03/2023 10:03, Mukul Gandhi wrote:
> Hi all,
> We need more Xalan pmc reviews, to have this RC
declared to be approved.
>
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 6:22 PM Gary Gregory
<garydgreg...@gmail.com <mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
>> Thank you Mukul for this RC.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> - Reviewing src zip: ASC, SHA files OK.
>> - Building runtime with 'chmod +x ./build.sh &&
./build.sh clean fulldist' OK.
>> - Following the README, there is confusion because
the unzipped src zip creates a `xalan-test` folder as a
child folder but the README describes it as a sibling
folder. Does this skew the tests or cause issues?
>> - TODOs later:
>> -- Fix Javadoc errors
>> -- Test output should be quieter in non-debug mode:
No need to tell me all the test files that PASS, I have
no idea if I am missing any failure output without
tediously reviewing ALL console output.
>>
>> Using:
>>
>> ant -version
>> Apache Ant(TM) version 1.10.13 compiled on January 4 2023
>>
>> java -version
>> openjdk version "1.8.0_362"
>> OpenJDK Runtime Environment (build
1.8.0_362-bre_2023_01_22_03_32-b00)
>> OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.362-b00, mixed mode)
>>
>> uname -a
>> Darwin *** 22.3.0 Darwin Kernel Version 22.3.0: Mon
Jan 30 20:42:11 PST 2023;
root:xnu-8792.81.3~2/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
>>
>> Gary
>
