Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 5:42:32 AM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
1.4instead of
1.3.2, does that fully answer the concern?
On 6/19/07, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07
What is a minor x.x.x release for?
Consider the recent modeler vote for 2.0.1. This will probably go
through very quickly, and that is because the change involved is tiny
and non controversial. That is what these releases are for IMHO - fixing
up release process mistakes and major bugs.
As a
PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 5:42:32 AM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
1.4instead of
1.3.2, does that fully answer
] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
1.4instead of
1.3.2, does that fully answer the concern?
On 6/19/07, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're right
.
Stephen
- Original Message
From: Ben Speakmon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 5:42:32 AM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number
@jakarta.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, 20 June, 2007 5:42:32 AM
Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
1.4instead of
1.3.2, does that fully answer the concern?
On 6/19/07, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
On 6/20/07, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is up to the RM, but with a -1 from a major contributor to the code
base, I would personally not push out the release. FWIW, as mentioned
on other threads, I agree with Stephen on the version number issue.
The problem is simply that votes
Jochen Wiedmann jochen.wiedmann at gmail.com writes:
The problem is simply that votes for releases on commons drive me sick.
It is not the exception, but the standard, that people demand changes
(which they of course assume that the RM will do) and use a -1 to
enforce their opinion.
I
On 6/20/07, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/20/07, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is up to the RM, but with a -1 from a major contributor to the code
base, I would personally not push out the release. FWIW, as mentioned
on other threads, I agree with Stephen on the
Hi,
Here's the result of the vote:
+1: Sebb, Oliver, Niall, Ben, Myself
-1: Stephen
No votes from Henri and Dion.
My understanding is, that Stephen's vote isn't counted as a veto, but
I'd like to ask you to correct me, if I'm wrong. In which case the
vote had failed.
Thanks,
Jochen
--
I believe you're right.
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html#decisions/items/plan says
...Majority
approval is required before the public release can be made.
On 6/20/07, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Here's the result of the vote:
+1: Sebb, Oliver, Niall, Ben,
On 6/19/07, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Here's the result of the vote:
+1: Sebb, Oliver, Niall, Ben, Myself
snip/
And +1 from Gary in another thread [1] -- though in a subsequent post
in the same thread he does express some interest in having the version
number be 1.4.
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [RESULT] 3rd attempt: Release commons-io 1.3.2
On 6/19/07, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Here's the result of the vote:
+1: Sebb, Oliver, Niall, Ben, Myself
snip/
And +1 from Gary in another thread [1] -- though
On 6/19/07, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're right.
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/proposal.html#decisions/items/plan says
...Majority
approval is required before the public release can be made.
Yes, that is the policy, but I have never seen us move forward with a
Is there anything at stake beyond the version number? If it's called
1.4instead of
1.3.2, does that fully answer the concern?
On 6/19/07, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/19/07, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe you're right.
15 matches
Mail list logo
