Including my own vote, I'm counting 4 binding +1, 5 other +1 and no -1's,
the vote passes.
I'll get the artifact published.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Carl Yeksigian wrote:
> +1
>
> On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Pavel Yaskevich wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Saturday, December 29, 2012 at
+1
On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Pavel Yaskevich wrote:
> +1
>
> On Saturday, December 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Yuki Morishita wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Jason Brown wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > > On Dec 29, 2012 9:31 AM, "Vijay" > > (mailto:
> vijay2...@gmail.com ) >
> > >
+1
On Saturday, December 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Yuki Morishita wrote:
> +1
>
> On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Jason Brown wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Dec 29, 2012 9:31 AM, "Vijay" > (mailto:vijay2...@gmail.com) >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 2
+1
On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Jason Brown wrote:
> +1
> On Dec 29, 2012 9:31 AM, "Vijay" >
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Sylvain Lebresne
> >
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > After a quiet 2nd release candidate, it is time to release the final
>
+1
On Dec 29, 2012 9:31 AM, "Vijay" wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Sylvain Lebresne >wrote:
>
> > After a quiet 2nd release candidate, it is time to release the final
> 1.2.0.
> > I thus propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0.
> >
> > sha1: 69337
+1
Regards,
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> After a quiet 2nd release candidate, it is time to release the final 1.2.0.
> I thus propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0.
>
> sha1: 69337a43670f71ae1fc55e23d6a9031230423900
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apac
+1
On Saturday, December 29, 2012, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> After a quiet 2nd release candidate, it is time to release the final 1.2.0.
> I thus propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0.
>
> sha1: 69337a43670f71ae1fc55e23d6a9031230423900
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/
+1
On Dec 29, 2012 7:40 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
> After a quiet 2nd release candidate, it is time to release the final 1.2.0.
> I thus propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0.
>
> sha1: 69337a43670f71ae1fc55e23d6a9031230423900
> Git:
>
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p
+1
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> After a quiet 2nd release candidate, it is time to release the final 1.2.0.
> I thus propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0.
>
> sha1: 69337a43670f71ae1fc55e23d6a9031230423900
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/a
Including my own, I count 3 binding +1's, 2 other +1 and no -1's. The vote
passes and I'll get the artifact published shortly.
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Jason Brown wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Carl Yeksigian
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11
+1
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Carl Yeksigian wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Brandon Williams
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Dec 20, 2012 4:58 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne"
> wrote:
> >
> > > There was a few quacks with rc1 (most notably #5064) but we've fixed
> > those,
> > > so
+1
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1
> On Dec 20, 2012 4:58 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
>
> > There was a few quacks with rc1 (most notably #5064) but we've fixed
> those,
> > so I propose
> > the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc2. Hopefully the final
+1
On Dec 20, 2012 4:58 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
> There was a few quacks with rc1 (most notably #5064) but we've fixed those,
> so I propose
> the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc2. Hopefully the final
> should come quickly after that one.
>
> sha1: cfe51fb4f7aeddd424525b59451e71
+1
On Dec 20, 2012 4:58 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
> There was a few quacks with rc1 (most notably #5064) but we've fixed those,
> so I propose
> the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc2. Hopefully the final
> should come quickly after that one.
>
> sha1: cfe51fb4f7aeddd424525b59451e71
Counting my own I count 5 binding +1, 1 other +1 and no -1's, the vote
passes.
I'lll get the artifacts published soonish.
--
Sylvain
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Gary Dusbabek wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Sylvain Lebresne >wrote:
>
> > We've now fixed all remaining b
+1
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> We've now fixed all remaining blocking problems on the 1.2.0 branch since
> beta3, and if we want to release the final before the end of the year it's
> time
> to get serious, so I propose the following artifacts for release as
> 1.2.
+1
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Pavel Yaskevich wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Yuki Morishita wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> yuki
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>>
>> > +1
>> > On Dec 11, 2012 5:19 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" > > (mailto:
+1
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Yuki Morishita wrote:
> +1
>
> yuki
>
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
>
> > +1
> > On Dec 11, 2012 5:19 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" > (mailto:sylv...@datastax.com)> wrote:
> >
> > > We've now fixed all remaining bl
+1
yuki
On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> +1
> On Dec 11, 2012 5:19 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" (mailto:sylv...@datastax.com)> wrote:
>
> > We've now fixed all remaining blocking problems on the 1.2.0 branch since
> > beta3, and if we want to release the final befo
+1
On Dec 11, 2012 5:19 AM, "Sylvain Lebresne" wrote:
> We've now fixed all remaining blocking problems on the 1.2.0 branch since
> beta3, and if we want to release the final before the end of the year it's
> time
> to get serious, so I propose the following artifacts for release as
> 1.2.0-rc1.
Including my own, I count 3 binding +1, 3 other +1 and no -1. The vote
passes, I'll get the artifacts published.
--
Sylvain
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Dave Brosius wrote:
> +1
>
>
> On 12/03/2012 01:43 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
>
>> So it seems we have a few things to fix before calling
+1
On 12/03/2012 01:43 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
So it seems we have a few things to fix before calling it a proper release
candidate, but we still have had quite a bit of changes since beta2 so I
propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-beta3.
sha1: b86f75dcd7041815bb66eb3d1bb2c1
+1
Regards,
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So it seems we have a few things to fix before calling it a proper release
> candidate, but we still have had quite a bit of changes since beta2 so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-beta3.
>
> sha1:
+1
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So it seems we have a few things to fix before calling it a proper release
> candidate, but we still have had quite a bit of changes since beta2 so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-beta3.
>
> sha1: b86f75dcd7041
+1
On Dec 3, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So it seems we have a few things to fix before calling it a proper release
> candidate, but we still have had quite a bit of changes since beta2 so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-beta3.
>
> sha1: b86f75dcd7041
+1
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> So it seems we have a few things to fix before calling it a proper release
> candidate, but we still have had quite a bit of changes since beta2 so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-beta3.
>
> sha1: b86f75dcd7041
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Jonathan Ellis wrote:
> I'm not a fan of blocking a new rc because of bugs that are not
> regressions new in that release. I'd also like to get more testing on
> the 1.2 fixes since b2. But we can call it b3 instead of rc1 if you
> want.
I agree with everything
I'm not a fan of blocking a new rc because of bugs that are not
regressions new in that release. I'd also like to get more testing on
the 1.2 fixes since b2. But we can call it b3 instead of rc1 if you
want.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:17
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> We've fixed pretty much all know issues since beta2 (remains 2 issues tagged
> 1.2.0 but none are really critical if they don't make it anyway) so so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc1.
I think we should solve CA
+1
Regards,
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> We've fixed pretty much all know issues since beta2 (remains 2 issues
> tagged
> 1.2.0 but none are really critical if they don't make it anyway) so so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc1.
>
> sha1
+1
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> We've fixed pretty much all know issues since beta2 (remains 2 issues tagged
> 1.2.0 but none are really critical if they don't make it anyway) so so I
> propose the following artifacts for release as 1.2.0-rc1.
>
> sha1: 2f187c92033b5
Including my own, I'm counting 4 binding +1's and no -1, the vote passes.
I'll get the artifacts published.
--
Sylvain
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Pavel Yaskevich wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:0
+1
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Sylvain Lebresne (mailto:sylv...@datastax.com)> wrote:
> > Lots have happened since beta1 and it's time to think seriously about the
> > 1.2.0
> > release, so I propose the following a
+1
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Lots have happened since beta1 and it's time to think seriously about the
> 1.2.0
> release, so I propose the following artifacts for release as
> 1.2.0-beta2.
>
> sha1: f04bebfa7e5fb0efd003685b10c0e31250de441d
> Git:
> http://git-wip-u
+1
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> Lots have happened since beta1 and it's time to think seriously about the
> 1.2.0
> release, so I propose the following artifacts for release as
> 1.2.0-beta2.
>
> sha1: f04bebfa7e5fb0efd003685b10c0e31250de441d
> Git:
> http://git-wip-u
+1
On Friday 21 September 2012 at 22:49, Eric Evans wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sylvain Lebresne (mailto:sylv...@datastax.com)> wrote:
> > sha1: 60bf68caa98566ce09e76d501b14d45b46c26209
> > Git:
> > http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/1.2
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> sha1: 60bf68caa98566ce09e76d501b14d45b46c26209
> Git:
> http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cassandra.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/1.2.0-beta1-tentative
> Artifacts:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecassa
+1
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> If we want to stay true to our new 6 months release cycle we should start
> getting serious about the release of 1.2. For that, it would definitively help
> to get wider testing and besides, all the issues marked 1.2.0-beta1 on JIRA
+1
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote:
> If we want to stay true to our new 6 months release cycle we should start
> getting serious about the release of 1.2. For that, it would definitively help
> to get wider testing and besides, all the issues marked 1.2.0-beta1 on JIRA
39 matches
Mail list logo
