Andrew,
Are you going to close the Vote and post the result?
Carl.
-
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released
without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a
couple of days ago). As you
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:05 +, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be
released without updating at least the ruby source file licence
I'd agree that we need a new RC to pick up the ruby license fix. Is this
something you're able to do Andrew please ?
Seems like we're inches from a release and it'd be great to get it out
there.
Marnie
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Andrew Stitcher astitc...@redhat.comwrote:
On Fri,
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
Blah blah blah
I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
will total the votes.
As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
I note that
On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
Blah blah blah
I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
will total the votes.
As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
So the release does not have
On 03/04/2010 12:31 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
Blah blah blah
I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
will total the votes.
As of today we have 2 votes to release
all rights,
including the right to copy, modify, and redistribute.
Robbie
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitc...@redhat.com]
Sent: 04 March 2010 17:17
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew
As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion
of license headers in all our files.
Right.
My interpretation of the ASF Source Header and Copyright
Notice
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released
without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did
a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think
+1 for the release.
The files in question are not really source files.
They are just project files for an IDE.
Rajith.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher astitc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I didn't vote as I didn't (and still
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
+1 for the release.
The files in question are not really source files.
They are just project files for an IDE.
Rajith.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher astitc...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15
It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the
other way on this, eg:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text.
That's interesting, it seems
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Steve Huston shus...@riverace.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:20 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
...
On the .csproj files, I would guess
I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
can proceed with a vote, correct?
On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible
to do the rest and finish the job.
Robbie
On 26 February
On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
can proceed with a vote, correct?
I believe we have to fix the missing license on the source code at a
minimum. I have checked in that change as r917988.
On the .csproj files,
-
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:g...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:20 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
can proceed with a vote, correct
On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately:
Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on
licenses now have license texts.
The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional,
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Gordon Sim g...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote
immediately:
Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the
Apache rules
on licenses now
+1 for shipping it!
I tested failover_soak ( in cpp/src/tests ) in a 1 M message cluster
failover test against a 4-cluster. This test involved about 20
broker-kills. It was happy. ( No dropped messages. )
I also used the first version of Shackleton ( a testing tool I'm working
on ) to
Alan Conway wrote:
On 02/23/2010 05:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote
immediately:
+1 with a release note.
Tested:
- C++ build make check OK.
- Start a cluster
- Run some python management tools (need release note on
I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately:
Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on
licenses now have license texts.
The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you
tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you
22 matches
Mail list logo
