Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

Thanks Sergio! I wasn't able to review this release, but I'll be reviewing the next one. On Tuesday, January 19, 2016, Sergio Fernández wrote: > Another remark for the future: all other non-binding votes from committers > are usually quite appreciated by the IPMC to validate

[RESULT][VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

The vote passes with 3, +1 binding votes, and one -1 binding votes from the PPMC members: David E Jones +1 (binding) Jacopo Cappellato +1 (binding) Ralph Goers +1 (binding) Sergio Fernández -1 (binding) As of the -1, see the discussion quoted below, and note that Sergio Fernández has informally

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

Hi, On Jan 19, 2016 20:05, "Daniel Dekany" wrote: > > You mean, it should have been version 2.3.24-rc01-a3 (in Maven and > everywhere), or just the non-Maven download URL-s should use separate > URL-s? No, only for the source release, which is what we actually vote in ASF.

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

-1 (binding), source link is missing from the vote email Something confusing on the overall release is that normally RC releases are what here are called attepts, because the project actually wants to publish RCs; so I guess the attempt number should be kept somewhere, folder name or wherever.

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

Hi Daniel, my issue with such workflow is that behind the assertion that "All the links remain as they were" there is a potential mismatch between the latest release and the downloaded one, as Jacopo pointed with the hashes. Specific release source must be linked in the vote email. Normally

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

Yes, you are right; I was confused because I have actually tested them when I have voted +1 to the previous attempt (you have announced the new vote in the same time I have casted mine). Here is my vote: +1 Jacopo On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:20 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

I am also +1 on the release Ralph > On Jan 16, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > > Those also look fine to me. The artifacts has the new NOTICE files, > and the the sha1 and md5 checksums are correct. > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > > > Saturday, January 16,

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

I was talking about the files here: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/freemarker/freemarker/2.3.24-rc01-incubating/ Jacopo On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Daniel Dekany wrote: > Friday, January 15, 2016, 9:46:31 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

Friday, January 15, 2016, 9:46:31 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > the release files and the hashes/signatures seem to be the same of the > previous attempt. Maybe I am missing something but I was expecting a new > version of them so that we could test the integrity of the bundles.

Re: [VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

+1 for this attempt too, notes in the previous VOTE thread -David > On 13 Jan 2016, at 16:11, Daniel Dekany wrote: > > I did an update. No functionality/stability changes, only legal ones > and some build script change: > > - NOTICE file changes: > - Added missing

[VOTE] Release FreeMarker 2.3.24-rc01-incubating, attempt 3

I did an update. No functionality/stability changes, only legal ones and some build script change: - NOTICE file changes: - Added missing META-INF/NOTICE to the Maven javadoc artifact - More precise and readable font-related section in the binary distribution - Customized