----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42984/#review117068 -----------------------------------------------------------
jfarrell: I'm definitely going to wait on your opinion on this one. I'm viewing you as the expert in this bunch on what the [RFC 2119](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt) keywords are for these emails. - John Sirois On Jan. 29, 2016, 4:56 p.m., John Sirois wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/42984/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Jan. 29, 2016, 4:56 p.m.) > > > Review request for Aurora, Jake Farrell, Maxim Khutornenko, and Bill Farner. > > > Repository: aurora > > > Description > ------- > > Hints of this protocol exist down in step 6 when a release succeeds, > but this places the failure action in-line in the step process to make > it more likely the reader does the right thing. > > Also kill an incorrect instruction to send the successful release vote > result email to the private@ list. > > docs/committers.md | 12 +++++++----- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > Diffs > ----- > > docs/committers.md a0a3cf55a25f2e97cc1f8d16e9ea549fef2fffd4 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/42984/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > I have no clue if the instructions and provided example link are correct. > I did find variation when reading past [RESULT][VOTE] failures; so > guidance on what is required vs what is personal flair is appreciated. > > Rendered here: > https://github.com/jsirois/aurora/blob/jsirois/release-docs/more-fixes/docs/committers.md > > > Thanks, > > John Sirois > >
