HI,
+1 binding
- vote correct (I assume so)
- md5 and signatures correct
- incubating in artefact name
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE correct (but a couple of minor things see below)
- no binary files in source release
- all source files have correct headers
- can compile from source
M
Hi,
> Honestly, I'm not sure what the canonical place for you to look up
> PPMC members
IMO that's needed to review votes.
> Are you interested in helping review/vote on our release or just
> debating the incubator policy stuffs?
I'm just looking at it now. Sorry for polluting the VOTE thread.
T
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On 2014-07-23 22:32, Arun Murthy wrote:
+1 (binding)
Arun
On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept Argus
as a
new Incubator project.
The proposal draft is available at:
https://wiki.apache.o
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:50 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
>> for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
>> members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
>> think the Aaron wa
We have requested the mentors. Also we could some help from IPMC.
regards
Rahul
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> I would request the mentors to have a look at the artifacts.
>
> thanks,
> Rahul
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@a
Hi,
> It requires 3 +1 votes on the podling list, they then bring it here
> for the 3+1 *binding* votes. In our case we got 4 total +1 {2 IPMC
> members; 2 PPMC members} and came here for the third binding vote. I
> think the Aaron was precise in his usage of "+1 votes" and "+1 binding
> votes".
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi
>
>> Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
>> you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the
>> mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes.
>
> I may be mistaken but I thought it requi
Hi
> Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
> you're referring to. I'm still under that impression [as one of the
> mentors] that we require 3 binding IPMC votes.
I may be mistaken but I thought it required 3 +1 binding votes on the podling
dev list and then 3 +1 IP
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
>> 2 x +1 binding votes
>> 2 x +1 non-binding votes
>
> Aren't IPMC votes binding so that would be 4 +1 binding votes?
Hi Justin,
Apache Blur isn't under the [new] alternate process, if that's what
you're referring to. I'm still under
HI,
> 2 x +1 binding votes
> 2 x +1 non-binding votes
Aren't IPMC votes binding so that would be 4 +1 binding votes?
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-
We've held a vote on blur-dev to release the 0.2.3-incubating version of
Apache Blur.
The vote thread can be found here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-blur-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAB6tTr0kZyjp82m%3DWO%3Di_8-%3DLQV5Hz13AB6dQ0%3DrDc93iBCjeg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
The vote passed with
+1 (binding)
Arun
> On Jul 21, 2014, at 9:03 AM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> Following the discussion earlier, I'm calling a vote to accept Argus as a
> new Incubator project.
>
> The proposal draft is available at:
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ArgusProposal, and is also included
> below.
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
