Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-11-01 Thread Siegfried Goeschl
Hi Niall, you are completely right - the correct result is +1* Luc Maisonobe +1* Niall Pemberton +1* Oliver Heger +1* Rahul Akolkar +1 Paul Benedict +1* Siegfried Goeschl +1* Phil Steitz Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl Niall Pemberton wrote: > The vote did pass but you added up the votes incorrectl

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-11-01 Thread Niall Pemberton
The vote did pass but you added up the votes incorrectly - I see no vote from Jörg and you missed my vote: http://markmail.org/message/77srbnesxigmkrsr Niall On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > the RC has successfully passed the vote with the following tally

[RESULT][VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-11-01 Thread Siegfried Goeschl
Hi folks, the RC has successfully passed the vote with the following tally (marking binding votes with *): +1* Luc Maisonobe +1* Jörg Schaible +1* Oliver Heger +1* Rahul Akolkar +1 Paul Benedict +1* Siegfried Goeschl +1* Phil Steitz Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl -

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-31 Thread Phil Steitz
Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. > > This release candidate has the following changes compared to RC2 > > +) using an "RC" tag for the M2 release plugin > +) removed commons-logging testing dependency since it is a

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-30 Thread Paul Benedict
+1 On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Rahul Akolkar wrote: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Siegfried Goeschl > wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. >> > >> >> [X] +1 release it >> [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care >> [ ] -1 no, do not r

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-30 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. > > > [X] +1 release it > [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care > [ ] -1 no, do not release it because -Rahul --

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-28 Thread Siegfried Goeschl
As always forgetting to cast my own vote ... :-) [X] +1 release it [ ] +0 go ahead I don't care [ ] -1 no, do not release it because Siegfried Goeschl Niall Pemberton wrote: > +1 > > Niall > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Siegfried Goeschl > wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I would like to ca

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-28 Thread Oliver Heger
+1 Oliver Siegfried Goeschl schrieb: Hi folks, I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. This release candidate has the following changes compared to RC2 +) using an "RC" tag for the M2 release plugin +) removed commons-logging testing dependency since it is a

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-28 Thread Niall Pemberton
+1 Niall On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > Hi folks, > > I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. > > This release candidate has the following changes compared to RC2 > > +) using an "RC" tag for the M2 release plugin > +) removed common

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-28 Thread Luc Maisonobe
Siegfried Goeschl a écrit : > Hi folks, > > I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. > > This release candidate has the following changes compared to RC2 > > +) using an "RC" tag for the M2 release plugin > +) removed commons-logging testing dependency since it i

[VOTE] Release commons-email-1.2 based on RC3

2009-10-26 Thread Siegfried Goeschl
Hi folks, I would like to call a vote for releasing commons-email-1.2 based on RC3. This release candidate has the following changes compared to RC2 +) using an "RC" tag for the M2 release plugin +) removed commons-logging testing dependency since it is already provided +) clirr report compares