William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> Small misunderstanding to clear up here;
Mea culpa - glad this was clarified earlier, gotta catch up on
archives from most-recent first I see :)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For add
Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we
> have 3 +1's from the PMC we can release.
Small misunderstanding to clear up here;
-1 is a legitimate vote
There must be 3 more +1's than -1's (and at least 3 +1's as you say)
A -1 is NOT a veto
On Feb 3, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
Or,
1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on
people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6
2. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build
3. wait 72 hours
4. if 3 +1's and more +1s than -1s, publish previously created tarball
and binaries to www.apac
Mark Thomas wrote:
Remy Maucherat wrote:
I am ok with changing the release process if something simpler is
possible. I am interested in speeding up the process by cutting back on
the number of votes.
The process would be:
1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on
people.apache.org/
Or,
1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on
people.apache.org/~remm/tomcat-6
2. call for alpha/beta/stable vote on build
3. wait 72 hours
4. if 3 +1's and more +1s than -1s, publish previously created tarball
and binaries to www.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-6, else wait longer
5.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> I am ok with changing the release process if something simpler is
> possible. I am interested in speeding up the process by cutting back on
> the number of votes.
>
> The process would be:
> 1. create tarball and unofficial binaries, put them on
> people.apache.org/~remm/to
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yoav Shapira wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we
>> >
>> > Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release?
Hi,
On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we
>
> Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release?
Standard Apache procedure as per
http://www.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we
>
> Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release?
Standard Apache procedure as per
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
Mark
--
Hi,
On 2/2/07, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we
Umm, why is a -1 not valid for a release? It can be overridden with a
majority of and at least 3 +1 votes, but it's valid. It's also why
the vote cannot be concluded in h
Mark Thomas wrote:
The bit that has to be done (ie is mandated by Apache rules) is a vote
by the PMC (three +1's required) to release a tarball.
Given that a -1 vote is not valid for a release vote, as soon as we
have 3 +1's from the PMC we can release. This means the release
process can be:
1.
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>> If you think its a PITA, don't do it.
>
> Apparently, it has to be done that way. I think it's a PITA because it
> does take a lot of time (every vote needs a few days, etc).
The bit that has to be done (ie is mandated by Apache rules) is a vote
by th
Mladen Turk wrote:
If you think its a PITA, don't do it.
Apparently, it has to be done that way. I think it's a PITA because it
does take a lot of time (every vote needs a few days, etc).
Rémy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EM
> But IMHO, I am more interested in seeing a 6.0.x release than 5.5.21 :)
> 5.5.21, could be a eternal beta like 5.0.30 for those sticking to that
> version.
Hi,
May the user base have pity on you...
Since 5.0.27 until 5.5.9 versions, tomcat had the classloader thread safety
show stopper #33743
William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 17:09 +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have.
It offers a build before official tag
Tagged sources are best here :) Tagged build does nothing for us, sin
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 17:09 +0100, Remy Maucherat wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> > Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have.
> > It offers a build before official tag
Tagged sources are best here :) Tagged build does nothing for us, since
we build from source. So if the buil
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have.
It offers a build before official tag
Yes, and it is useless, and it makes the release procedure days longer.
Thanks to this nonsense the release procedure now takes over two weeks.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have.
It offers a build before official tag
Yes, and it is useless, and it makes the release procedure days longer.
Thanks to this nonsense the release procedure now takes over two weeks.
Unfortunately, it seems I
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
yes, early next week, i'll email when I have a target time for the tag
Anyhow, a thing like Remy is doing for 6.0 would be nice to have.
It offers a build before official tag
Can we have that for 5.5.12 as well?
The RM can put 'what will be released' in his priv
yes, early next week, i'll email when I have a target time for the tag
Mladen Turk wrote:
Yoav Shapira wrote:
... it's got a lot of good and important fixes in it. Filip, you up
for cutting the release, say this weekend or early next week?
++1
--
Mladen
---
Yoav Shapira wrote:
... it's got a lot of good and important fixes in it. Filip, you up
for cutting the release, say this weekend or early next week?
++1
--
Mladen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional
21 matches
Mail list logo
