The votes were 8 +1 binding, 1 +1 non-binding, and no -1 votes. I will
get the release published.
--
Kind regards,
Michael
On 09/26/2016 09:52 AM, Michael Shuler wrote:
> I propose the following artifacts for release as 3.8.
>
> sha1: ce609d19fd130e16184d9e6d37ffee4a1ebad607
> Git:
> http://git
I am more -0 at this point, because I think we need to get our priorities
straight before even talking about dates and releases, that's why I wrote that
I agree with Sylvain.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 28, 2016, at 1:40 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> Also I believe Pavel may have switched
Also I believe Pavel may have switched tacitly to -1 with his "I agree with
Sylvain" email?
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> I change my vote to -1.
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
>> w
I change my vote to -1.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
> > 1. Release 3.8 as is now. It’s an even preview release that can live fine
> > with one minor annoyance on upgrade. Have 3.9 released on schedule.
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> 1. Release 3.8 as is now. It’s an even preview release that can live fine
> with one minor annoyance on upgrade. Have 3.9 released on schedule.
> Since the vote technically passed, we can just do it, now.
>
> 2. Wait until #12236 is in,
-1
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Let me sum up my thoughts so far.
>
> Some of the most important goals of tick-tock were 1) predictable, regular
> releases with manageable changesets and
> 2)individual releases that are more stable than in our previous process.
>
>
Let me sum up my thoughts so far.
Some of the most important goals of tick-tock were 1) predictable, regular
releases with manageable changesets and
2)individual releases that are more stable than in our previous process.
Now, we’ve already slipped a few times. Most recently with 3.6, and now w
I apologize for messing this vote up.
So, what should happen now? Drop RESULT from the subject and continue
discussion of alternatives and voting?
--
Kind regards,
Michael
On 07/27/2016 06:33 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko wrote:
> The difference is that those -1s were based on new information
> discove
You can count me as -1.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
>
> Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the
> binding majority, and the r
The difference is that those -1s were based on new information discovered after
the vote was started, while this one wasn’t.
In addition to that, the discussion was still ongoing, and a decision on the
alternative has not been made. As such closing the vote was definitely
premature.
FWIW I in
I concur with Sylvain.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 1:59 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> > interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
> >
> > Thus, if you were to do close
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
>
> Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the
> binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s
For completeness, Jake and Pavel are the other two.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Sorry (: Only see yours, Dave’s, and mine in my client. Apparently I’ve
> trashed the email chain at some point.
>
> --
> AY
>
> On 26 July 2016 at 23:48:49, Brandon Williams (dri...@g
Sorry (: Only see yours, Dave’s, and mine in my client. Apparently I’ve trashed
the email chain at some point.
--
AY
On 26 July 2016 at 23:48:49, Brandon Williams (dri...@gmail.com) wrote:
Small nit: there are currently 5 binding +1 and 1 binding -1, (or 2, with
Jonathan.)
On Tue, Jul 26,
Small nit: there are currently 5 binding +1 and 1 binding -1, (or 2, with
Jonathan.)
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Aleksey Yeschenko
wrote:
> Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you
> interpret Jonathan’s emails as such).
>
> Thus, if you were to do close the vote no
Sorry, but I’m counting 3 binding +1s and 1 binding -1 (2, if you interpret
Jonathan’s emails as such).
Thus, if you were to do close the vote now, the vote is passing with the
binding majority, and the required minimum # of +1s gained.
I also don’t see the PMC consensus on ‘August 3.8 release
Thanks for the clarity, Jonathan. I agree that an August 3.8 release
target sounds like the most reasonable option, at this point in time.
With Sylvain's binding -1, this vote has failed.
--
Kind regards,
Michael Shuler
On 07/21/2016 05:33 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I feel like the calendar is
17 matches
Mail list logo
