On 04/19/2011 04:00 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 18/04/2011 22:40, sebb wrote:
As suggested by Hen, we should be able to use lazy consensus voting
for Commons Parent pom releases.
[ ] +1 let's use lazy consensus voting for Commons Parent pom in future
[X] -1 why not?
It is a release and that req
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 6:59 PM, sebb wrote:
> Note that Maven core is released to /dist, however AFAICT none of the
> plugins are released to /dist, nor is the Apache Parent Pom.
> So even if Commons uploads the parent pom, it won't be possible to use
> it without relying on Maven Central.
Agre
On 19 April 2011 15:00, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 18/04/2011 22:40, sebb wrote:
>> As suggested by Hen, we should be able to use lazy consensus voting
>> for Commons Parent pom releases.
>>
>> [ ] +1 let's use lazy consensus voting for Commons Parent pom in future
>> [X] -1 why not?
>
> It is a rele
No point continuing this thread any further.
On 19 April 2011 15:58, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Here is Apache's Release FAQ:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>
> There is a line that says "Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on
> approving any release" but then doesn't divulge those rule
Here is Apache's Release FAQ:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
There is a line that says "Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on
approving any release" but then doesn't divulge those rules. I imagine the
+3 rules applies universally. If they don't, I am about to learn something
new.
Pau
On 4/18/11 2:40 PM, sebb wrote:
> As suggested by Hen, we should be able to use lazy consensus voting
> for Commons Parent pom releases.
>
> [ ] +1 let's use lazy consensus voting for Commons Parent pom in future
> [ ] -1 why not?
-1
Its either a release or its not. If it is, we have to VOTE. It
On 18/04/2011 22:40, sebb wrote:
> As suggested by Hen, we should be able to use lazy consensus voting
> for Commons Parent pom releases.
>
> [ ] +1 let's use lazy consensus voting for Commons Parent pom in future
> [X] -1 why not?
It is a release and that requires a positive action from the PMC
It seems to me the process worked. It's a nice simple process, so starting
to add exceptions is not my first choice.
Gary
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:58 AM, wrote:
> -1 I am not comfortable either with lazy consensus here.
> It is a release and furthermore it is a dependency for all our component
On 19 April 2011 08:58, wrote:
> -1 I am not comfortable either with lazy consensus here.
> It is a release and furthermore it is a dependency for all our components as
> what we release is really source code, so the build process is important.
It is a release, but each release is an optional d
-1 I am not comfortable either with lazy consensus here.
It is a release and furthermore it is a dependency for all our components as
what we release is really source code, so the build process is important.
We clearly failed with the previous vote, but Gary set up another one quickly.
Luc
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> Another topic: Are we, as a PMC, free to allow lazy consensus? After
> all, this is a release in the sense of the ASF (although a very small
> one). I think we should query the board or at least a skilled board
> member before going on. I find it likely that the "3 PMC mem
Another topic: Are we, as a PMC, free to allow lazy consensus? After
all, this is a release in the sense of the ASF (although a very small
one). I think we should query the board or at least a skilled board
member before going on. I find it likely that the "3 PMC members" is
something that we canno
+1
Allow me to disagree, Paul. POM changes will get efficient only, if
they get picked up. This usually happens long before a release of the
dependent project. And if any problems are found, it is relatively
easy to fix them and bring up a new release.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Paul Bened
+1 Although it is technically a release, I can't imagine why any external
entity would directly use it. Even if they do they would have to test it no
matter what we do. Having a less formal procedure for this just makes sense to
me.
Ralph
On Apr 18, 2011, at 2:40 PM, sebb wrote:
> As suggest
On 18 April 2011 23:11, Paul Benedict wrote:
> -1
>
> POM changes can have big impacts, especially if an erroneous one is
> released. It's not that I don't trust the person who makes the changes, but
> I would like several people to approve the changes before the ecosystem is
> impacted. Checks an
-1
POM changes can have big impacts, especially if an erroneous one is
released. It's not that I don't trust the person who makes the changes, but
I would like several people to approve the changes before the ecosystem is
impacted. Checks and balances.
If it turns out I am the only -1 vote, I wil
As suggested by Hen, we should be able to use lazy consensus voting
for Commons Parent pom releases.
[ ] +1 let's use lazy consensus voting for Commons Parent pom in future
[ ] -1 why not?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr..
17 matches
Mail list logo
