Also, not sure if my vote counts, but +1
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Werner Keil <[email protected]> wrote: > Hope everything was fixed now. > It may be non-binding, but > +1 > > Werner > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 3:07 AM, Neil Griffin < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Apache Portals Pluto Team and community, >> >> It took me a few weeks to find room in my schedule, but thanks to >> Woonsan's helpful advice I've staged another candidate for the new Apache >> Portals Pluto 3.0.1 >> release. >> >> This release candidate includes: >> >> * Fully compliant Reference Implementation of the new Portlet 3.0 >> Specification per JCR-362 >> https://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=362 >> * Fully completed (and corrected) TCK (Test Compatibility Kit) for >> Portlet Spec 3.0 >> * Updated portlet-api with associated Javadoc improvements >> * General bugfixes >> * Updated archetypes >> >> Please review the release candidate for this project which is found in >> the following maven staging repository: >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheportals-1022/ >> >> As Woonsan asked, the source and other artifacts have been made available >> at the /dist/dev directory: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/portals/pluto/ >> >> (These files will be promoted to /dist/release if the vote passes) >> >> The Release Notes are available here: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje >> ctId=10560&version=12338908 >> >> The KEYS file to verify the release artifacts signature can be found here: >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/portals/pluto/KEYS >> >> Please review the release candidates and vote on releasing Apache Portals >> Pluto 3.0.1 >> >> REMINDER: According to the following policy: >> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval >> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download >> all >> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they >> meet >> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, >> validate all >> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on >> their >> own platform." >> >> Seeing as how I am sending this on a Friday again, the normal vote of 72 >> hours >> seems unreasonable. Therefore I would like to extend the vote to 96 hours. >> >> Please cast your vote: >> >> [ ] +1 for Release >> [ ] 0 for Don't care >> [ ] -1 Don't release (do provide a reason then) >> >> >> Best Regards to all, >> >> Neil >> > >
