Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Thanks Ted, Justin. Your comments provide a reassuring backdrop to those of us in gearpump which are new to the voting process.We've made the corrections as suggested and will get 0.8.1-RC4 out in a timely manner. Kam On Monday, July 18, 2016 9:32 PM, Justin Mclean

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi, Thanks Ted for a friendly explanation of all that. > Typically what happens in a smooth functioning project is that if somebody > points out a heinous problem (forgot to include the source code in a source > release, say), everybody (or nearly everybody) who previously voted +1 will >

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > 4. Veto rule differences (or lack thereof) within the general@ voting > vs dev@ voting > > Releases can not be vetoed [3], a -1 is not a veto. 3 +1 are required and > more +1s than -1s. Typically what happens

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi, > 1. A tie (and if the voting period will be extended when a tie occurs) Would not pass. For a release you need at least 3 +1 binding votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. [1] > .2. Less than the required number of votes (+3 and how this will extend the > voting period) The vote lasts

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Thanks John, Craig and Ted for weighing in on this matter. I wasn't clear about a few of the rules related to voting including: 1. A tie (and if the voting period will be extended when a tie occurs).2. Less than the required number of votes (+3 and how this will extend the voting period)3.

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

> On Jul 18, 2016, at 8:43 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM Ted Dunning wrote: > >> A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the >> major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM Ted Dunning wrote: > A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the > major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next > vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

A RESULT can still be given when the vote is cancelled. To my mind, the major purpose of the CANCEL is to shorten the vote period so that the next vote on the next iteration of the release candidate can start immediately without confusion. On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Craig Russell

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi John, Given the state of Apache documented processes, I think it was perfectly fine to close this vote with a RESULT. I was not confused after reading >>> We will correct the noted problems and submit a 0.8.1-RC4. Recognizing that this document is (still!) in draft status

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

ASF votes don't complete in 72 hours unless the required binding votes are placed. In this case you did not get +3 binding votes (you got +2 and -2, which yields 0). Its not clear from this email whether you're saying the vote has passed or not. Usually when a vote does not pass, the person

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi John The vote period has ended and I'm indicating that we will reissue a new candidate release package in lieu of the down votes.Do I need to explicitly say 'cancel' the vote?  ThanksKam On Sunday, July 17, 2016 7:36 PM, John D. Ament wrote: Did you mean to

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Did you mean to cancel this vote? On Jul 17, 2016 22:29, "Kam Kasravi" wrote: > The results are in and voting is now closed. > > [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1 > Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding) > Andrew Purtell (binding) > > [2] -1 Do not release this package

[RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

The results are in and voting is now closed. [2] +1 Release this package as gearpump-0.8.1 Jean-Baptiste Onofré (binding) Andrew Purtell (binding) [2] -1 Do not release this package Justin Mclean (binding) missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE problems John D. Ament (binding) missing DISCLAIMER We

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Good catch, I missed the DISCLAIMER in my review. LICENSE should be improved too even if I don't think it's a blocker for this release. Regards JB On 07/15/2016 01:50 PM, John D. Ament wrote: Sorry but -1 due to missing DISCLAIMER in the release. See [1] for more details [1]:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi Justin Thanks for the detailed review! - especially in regards to the LICENSE file. We had originally included license references that were part of a binary release. I'll clean this up to remove these items and address the other issues you've noted. Your youtube video is really helpful with

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Thanks John. We have already merged a PR that has a separate DISCLAIMER file.I agree - it's an easy thing to add at this time but we'll wait for the final tally. On Friday, July 15, 2016 3:43 PM, John D. Ament wrote: Hi Kam, Two things.. 1. I'm not asking for

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi, -1 binding, missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE and header issues I checked: - artefact names contain incubating - hashes and signature good - DISCLAIMER file is missing - LICENSE contains things that are not bundled and missing things that are (see below). It also contains paths to files that

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi Kam, Two things.. 1. I'm not asking for the disclaimer in the README. You can choose to put it wherever you see appropriate, a dedicated DISCLAIMER file may make sense. It shouldn't be too hard to re-roll a release with that fix (I didn't see any other issues, but I can take a second closer

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Thanks John. We will add this to the README as suggested. We will also update the web site (gearpump.apache.org) with the incubating logo, disclaimer - however we were going to do that once we release (as part of updating the website with the release information). Hopefully this is acceptable.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Thank you very much John. We will fix. On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 4:50 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Sorry but -1 due to missing DISCLAIMER in the release. See [1] for more > details > > > [1]: > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Sorry but -1 due to missing DISCLAIMER in the release. See [1] for more details [1]: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM Kam Kasravi wrote: > Hi IPMC Community > > The PPMC vote to release Apache

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

+1 (binding) Regards JB On 07/14/2016 09:39 PM, Kam Kasravi wrote: Hi IPMC Community The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3 has passed. We would like to now submit this release candidate to the IPMC. The PPMC vote thread is here:

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Carrying over my +1 from the PPMC vote. Please someone have a look at the release artifacts. I try, but don't have the encyclopedic knowledge of policy nor the eye for detail that some of you other IPMCers do. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Kam Kasravi wrote: > Hi

[VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi IPMC Community The PPMC vote to release Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3 has passed. We would like to now submit this release candidate to the IPMC. The PPMC vote thread is here: