Alright, got it. I'm retracting the vote as I haven't tested the RC yet anyway.
On 11 October 2015 at 18:27, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > That’s not are reason to redo a release candidate, especially since I > think that bug has been around a while. > > As a reminder, your vote means that you have downloaded and inspected the > release candidate and didn’t find any defects that are showstoppers, both > in terms of operation and packaging. So something like a severe performance > degradation, binary compatibility breakage, missing license headers, > artifacts that are improperly signed, etc are all reasons to vote -1 on a > release. > > Ralph > > > On Oct 11, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > > It's a rather minor change that would fix a bug marked critical, so it > could be worth redoing the RC. I'll make a vote on that. > > On 11 October 2015 at 17:30, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Also, your vote is still binding so if you want to review and vote on the >> release you can. That said, I understand if you want to take some time and >> get acquainted with the code again. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 3:28 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> No nothing has really changed. I have a branch I am waiting to commit to >> master since I don’t want it included if I have to create another release >> candidate. That wouldn’t be a problem for simple bug fixes. >> >> Ralph >> >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 3:03 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Has anything changed in regard to branching since I last contributed? I >> pushed a commit to master to fix a bug, but I forgot to make sure that was >> still the right way to do things (especially with an RC going on). >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Matt Sicker <[email protected]> > > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
