Anyone had time to validate this change? We also still need 2 more +1s from mentors...
>-----Original Message----- >From: Franklin, Matthew B. >Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 9:38 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate > > >>________________________________________ >>From: Franklin, Matthew B. [[email protected]] >>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:36 PM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:[email protected]] >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 7:41 AM >>>To: [email protected] >>>Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>I've now created a patch which, if needed, can be applied also to the >>>>0.6-incubating release/tag sources as well as has been applied already to >>>>trunk. >>>>See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-382 >>>> >>>>Based on this fix and documented workaround for (only) the 0.6- >incubating >>>>binary >>>>demo (see RAVE-382), I'm going to vote +1 on this release candidate now, >>>>under >>>>the provision we'll provide an updated README (or add a >RELEASE_NOTES?) >>>>with the >>>>release, both in the binary distribution and on the website. >>>>This should also point users to RAVE-382 and its patch with instructions >how >>>to >>>>manually fix the releases sources if needed >>> >>>I will repack the demo binaries with the updated RELEASE notes and >pointers >>>on the website later today >> >>Or tomorrow..... Sorry, I was overcome by events today. Since we are >waiting on our other mentors to vote on the >release, I have time :) > >Updated README in binary release and uploaded to build location. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Ate >>>> >>>>> Ate >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Or stated another way -- I don't see any reason why other projects >that >>>>have >>>>>> been building on Rave should have to miss out on this release due to a >>>>>> configuration problem which probably wouldn't even affect them (or if >it >>>>did, >>>>>> with proper documentation of known issues for the release, could be >>>>easily >>>>> worked around). >>>>>> >>>>>>> Just to be clear: regardless my vote, if you get a majority and +3 IPMC >>>>votes >>>>>>> this release can be regarded successfully. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ate >>>>> >>>
