A couple of comments:

#1: Since the vote has only been open for 24 hours, there may not have
been enough time for everyone to comment on the release -- while there
are already 3 +1s which are sufficient to declare a release, the
additional time allows those who haven't had time to look at the
release to provide feedback.  Typically, votes run for at least 3 days
to allow everyone time to provide feedback.
#2: While Kevin didn't -1 the release, he did -0 and it might be worth
discussing how to resolve his concern.

There are also a issues with the release package:
 - Missing NOTICE file
 - Missing Incubator DISCLAIMER
 - What is the sun.misc.Perf class file?  Can we distribute that?
 - The JAR's MANIFEST.MF file has an extra "$" character for the
Specification Vendor
 - The release needs a GPG signature

And a couple of questions:
 - Is there a source distribution of this release?  If not, why not?
 - Is there an SVN tag for this?


On 10/19/06, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OpenJPA People-

The final tally of the vote is:

+1 votes: 3

Bryan Noll:
jpa-dev/200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Abe White:
jpa-dev/200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Patrick Linksey:

   0 votes: 1

Kevin Sutter:

-1 votes: 0

Since we've exceeded the required minimum of +1 votes with no vetoes
the proposal passes. Next I am going to request an approval from the
Incubator PMC to publish the tarball on our download page.

Thanks to all who voted!

On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> OpenJPA People-
> In accordance with the Incubating Releases guidelines at  http://
> ,
> I'd like to start a vote on publishing a "0.9.5-incubating" release
> of OpenJPA.
> The release candidate is in my home directory at:
> openjpa-project/0.9.5-incubating/
> The MD5 sum for the file is 322b7af1b557fa8c3fae5dc539696f1a
> Please vote to publish this incubating release on the project Web
> page:
> (note: I had previously jumped the gun and updated the wiki with a
> link to that download ... David Blevins helpfully mentioned that
> that wasn't in accordance with ASF policies. I apologize)

Reply via email to