On 19 April 2011 08:58, <luc.maison...@free.fr> 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 dependency - components don't have to use that version of the POM unless they want to. > We clearly failed with the previous vote, but Gary set up another one quickly. > > Luc > > ----- "Ralph Goers" <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> a écrit : > >> +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 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...@commons.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
