In general, the preference is to report the non-blocking issue, and confirm the podling has it entered into their bug tracker. Then they accept the +1. We don't generally wait for a code change to be made, but would block the next release if these issues are not addressed. I personally want to understand why we're requiring the podling to fix it now before approving the release. This looks like PredictionIO's first release, so we wouldn't have seen this already.
The contents of the release generally look good. IN addition to the notes from Luciano, your NOTICE file should be updated to reflect 2016-2017 ASF. I would recommend renaming these files to just NOTICE and LICENSE and drop the .txt, to better comply with the licensing. Here's my +1, not waiting for anything to be fixed. John On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 7:43 PM Andrew Purtell <andrew.purt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will too, and then you will have two binding votes in the affirmative. > > > On Apr 22, 2017, at 12:34 PM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> > wrote: > >> > >> But is it worth doing yet another podling RC and release vote? > >> > > > >> If it is, please vote -1, at least we won’t be left waiting and we thank > >> you for being the one who took a look either way. > >> > >> We are just trying to move, out if possible or iterate if not. These > >> issues have not changed from the current release and so do not indicate > >> regression and they have Jira’s for the next release. > >> > >> > > Not necessary, once this is fixed in master I would vote ok for the > current > > RC > > > > -- > > Luciano Resende > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975 > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
