+1 move to gitbox
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage +1 from me.
>
> We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal email
> thread will do then that's fine with me
>
> Aled
>
>
> On 12/12/2018 16:41,
Sorry Richard, it's a +1 from me too
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:08 Mark McKenna wrote:
> +1 Moving to gitbox makes sense
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage
> > +1 from me.
> >
> > We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> > interpreted that as us needing a
+1 Moving to gitbox makes sense
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, 16:56 Aled Sage +1 from me.
>
> We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
> interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal email
> thread will do then that's fine with me
>
> Aled
>
>
> On
All,
The Apache Brooklyn build depends on having a working Docker instance. This
I did not know.
The build failure happens in the `brooklyn-dist` project, which
incorporates into execution `dockerfile-maven-plugin` which invokes Docker
during the build phase. If Docker is not running, it tries
+1 from me.
We need "Consensus in the project (documented via the mailing list)" - I
interpreted that as us needing a formal vote, but if an informal email
thread will do then that's fine with me
Aled
On 12/12/2018 16:41, Richard Downer wrote:
Brooklyn team,
Apart from myself, I don't
Brooklyn team,
Apart from myself, I don't think anyone has clearly come out in favour or
opposed to this. I'd rather we got consensus and moved to gitbox early - so
that if some people do object, we have time to work out the objections with
infra, before we are involuntarily moved.
Thoughts,
