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, <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. > > 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 > > -- Thank you, Gary http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ http://garygregory.com/ http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
