You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@directory.apache.org by Felix Knecht <fe...@otego.com> on 2008/09/17 08:09:21 UTC
[vote] Release studio-plugin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
After using the studio-plugin for quite a time without any changes needed it seems stable enough to do a first release.
This majority vote stays open for 72 hours.
Please cast your votes.
Felix
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkjQnxEACgkQ2lZVCB08qHEExQCffntzxIsHw4fEBnct3+kym5NH
0oYAn2Si3GfO2jTIetx2hvj6sTVaIuzo
=pusn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin]
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ak...@apache.org>.
The #1 ASF rule is common sense. Sure if a release of ADS or Studio
encapsulates shared which everyone knows then there's no need to vote on the
shared release. This is implicit. If someone has an issue with shared they
can -1 the ADS or Studio vote pointing out the shared issues.
Alex
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> David Jencks wrote:
>
>> ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
>>> I would like to get your opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have some reason to think that releasing stuff without a pmc vote
>> is allowed by apache rules? I really thought that was the one inalterable
>> and inescapable duty of the PMC.
>>
> We will _not_break any apache rule, if we consider that we will release a
> subproject after having vote for the encapsulating release. That's the key.
> Again, if we release ADS after a vote, we release in the same time daemon,
> installers, shared and project. I don't see why we should launch 4 sub-votes
> in this case.
>
> Now, if we have to release a sub-project per se, then a vote would be
> necessary.
>
> Regarding the TLP pom.xml, again, it should _not_ be released alone, but
> must be released after a vote of a release of ADS or shared.
>
> So if I gave the impression that I allowed a release of the TLP pom.xml
> alone without a vote, I'm sorry about that, it was my mistake.
>
>
> thanks !
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release
studio-plugin]
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
>> ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
>> I would like to get your opinion.
>
> Do you have some reason to think that releasing stuff without a pmc
> vote is allowed by apache rules? I really thought that was the one
> inalterable and inescapable duty of the PMC.
We will _not_break any apache rule, if we consider that we will release
a subproject after having vote for the encapsulating release. That's the
key. Again, if we release ADS after a vote, we release in the same time
daemon, installers, shared and project. I don't see why we should launch
4 sub-votes in this case.
Now, if we have to release a sub-project per se, then a vote would be
necessary.
Regarding the TLP pom.xml, again, it should _not_ be released alone, but
must be released after a vote of a release of ADS or shared.
So if I gave the impression that I allowed a release of the TLP pom.xml
alone without a vote, I'm sorry about that, it was my mistake.
thanks !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin]
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:28 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> I would like to start a new thread, because this is an important
> matter.
>
> The question is : do we have to vote every release ?
>
> There are pos and cons.
>
> pros :
> - people will be more aware about changes done in a specific part
> - deploying the jar into maven when a vote has passed is a guarantee
> that the released jar is endorsed by us
- required by the legal basis of the apache foundation, IIUC
>
>
> cons :
> - as we have now around 7 projects/sub-projects, plus a couple of
> plugins (actually, 3, AFAIK), this might transform this PMC to a
> vote machine ;)
> - as many of those subprojects are bound to a bigger project, this
> would be overkilling
- violates legal foundations of apache, again IIUC.
>
>
> Thsoe pros/cons are just the few things which comes to my mind, so
> feel free to discuss this further, then we may take a decision.
>
> ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
> I would like to get your opinion.
Do you have some reason to think that releasing stuff without a pmc
vote is allowed by apache rules? I really thought that was the one
inalterable and inescapable duty of the PMC.
thanks
david jencks
>
>
> Thanks !
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
Re: Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin]
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
+1
I agree on both two points.
Pierre-Arnaud
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Felix Knecht wrote:
>
>> Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> I would like to start a new thread, because this is an important matter.
>>>
>>> The question is : do we have to vote every release ?
>>>
>>> There are pos and cons.
>>>
>>> pros :
>>> - people will be more aware about changes done in a specific part
>>> - deploying the jar into maven when a vote has passed is a guarantee
>>> that the released jar is endorsed by us
>>>
>>> cons :
>>> - as we have now around 7 projects/sub-projects, plus a couple of
>>> plugins (actually, 3, AFAIK), this might transform this PMC to a vote
>>> machine ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Hehe 'Release early, release often' :-)
>>
>>
>>> - as many of those subprojects are bound to a bigger project, this
>>> would be overkilling
>>>
>>> Thsoe pros/cons are just the few things which comes to my mind, so
>>> feel free to discuss this further, then we may take a decision.
>>>
>>> ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
>>> I would like to get your opinion.
>>>
>>>
>> If we do so, we should state this somewhere in our documentation.
>>
>>
> Absolutely !
>
> Doing so we should also state that when one of the projects mentioned
>> above is released all projectes only based on this one is released as
>> well ->
>> - shared
>> - server (includes implicitly daemon, installer)
>> - studio (includes implicitly studio-plugin)
>>
>>
> yep.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release
studio-plugin]
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Felix Knecht wrote:
> Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
>
>> I would like to start a new thread, because this is an important matter.
>>
>> The question is : do we have to vote every release ?
>>
>> There are pos and cons.
>>
>> pros :
>> - people will be more aware about changes done in a specific part
>> - deploying the jar into maven when a vote has passed is a guarantee
>> that the released jar is endorsed by us
>>
>> cons :
>> - as we have now around 7 projects/sub-projects, plus a couple of
>> plugins (actually, 3, AFAIK), this might transform this PMC to a vote
>> machine ;)
>>
> Hehe 'Release early, release often' :-)
>
>> - as many of those subprojects are bound to a bigger project, this
>> would be overkilling
>>
>> Thsoe pros/cons are just the few things which comes to my mind, so
>> feel free to discuss this further, then we may take a decision.
>>
>> ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
>> I would like to get your opinion.
>>
> If we do so, we should state this somewhere in our documentation.
>
Absolutely !
> Doing so we should also state that when one of the projects mentioned
> above is released all projectes only based on this one is released as
> well ->
> - shared
> - server (includes implicitly daemon, installer)
> - studio (includes implicitly studio-plugin)
>
yep.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release
studio-plugin]
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
> I would like to start a new thread, because this is an important matter.
>
> The question is : do we have to vote every release ?
>
> There are pos and cons.
>
> pros :
> - people will be more aware about changes done in a specific part
> - deploying the jar into maven when a vote has passed is a guarantee
> that the released jar is endorsed by us
>
> cons :
> - as we have now around 7 projects/sub-projects, plus a couple of
> plugins (actually, 3, AFAIK), this might transform this PMC to a vote
> machine ;)
Hehe 'Release early, release often' :-)
> - as many of those subprojects are bound to a bigger project, this
> would be overkilling
>
> Thsoe pros/cons are just the few things which comes to my mind, so
> feel free to discuss this further, then we may take a decision.
>
> ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
> I would like to get your opinion.
If we do so, we should state this somewhere in our documentation.
Doing so we should also state that when one of the projects mentioned
above is released all projectes only based on this one is released as
well ->
- shared
- server (includes implicitly daemon, installer)
- studio (includes implicitly studio-plugin)
Felix
Should we vote for every release ? [was : Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin]
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
I would like to start a new thread, because this is an important matter.
The question is : do we have to vote every release ?
There are pos and cons.
pros :
- people will be more aware about changes done in a specific part
- deploying the jar into maven when a vote has passed is a guarantee that the released jar is endorsed by us
cons :
- as we have now around 7 projects/sub-projects, plus a couple of plugins (actually, 3, AFAIK), this might transform this PMC to a vote machine ;)
- as many of those subprojects are bound to a bigger project, this would be overkilling
Thsoe pros/cons are just the few things which comes to my mind, so feel free to discuss this further, then we may take a decision.
ATM, I think that we just need to vote for Server, Studio, and shared.
I would like to get your opinion.
Thanks !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
> It's much more a question of who is using the released part. Atm, it's
> just us, the Server. Even studio don't use it.
But you never now if there are any shadow users you don't know about -
it's an opensource project.
>
> We have had the very same discussion 2 months ago about shared :
> should we vote on it? Right now, I think we should vote on what is
> used by more than one project, as it gives a chance to avoid problems.
> So here is the project I think we need to vote for :
> - Studio
> - Server
> - Shared
>
> All the other projects (project, plugins, daemon, etc) are only used
> internally by a single project, and are part of a bigger vote. You
> won't release Studio if the studio-plugin is dorked ...
The studio-plugin may be a very special case but e.g. the shared library
is available on Apaches Maven repository as release as well. Because
it's public I think it's worth to pass a formal process before making
peaces of code as release public available.
Raising a majority vote about a release you just need three binding +1
votes, vetoed vote can be skipped [1].
Regards
Felix
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html (Votes on Package Releases)
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
>> usually don't release the TLP pom per se, it is only released if one
>> other part is released, so we _have_ a formal vote (usually :), for the
>> encapsulating project (apacheds, here).
>>
>
> Which IMO is in contradiction to your response when I launched a vote some days ago about releasing a TLP pom :-).
yes, sorry about that. I was not clear.
> And
> it's stated clearly in the dev doc you pointed me to that no vote is needed to release a TLP pom:
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/NdY, chap. 'Corrective Actions to Properly Use the TLP POM', pt. 6:
> "No vote needed for TLP POM release for PMC members - just a notification to release with 4 hour grace period to
> accommodate the lack of using SNAPSHOT for this POM"
>
This is a PMC decision, that we can make, as soon as we don't release
SNAPSHOTS. Remember that this TLP pom is just there because we are using
maven, otherwise we won't be able to build the project. It's a
pre-condition.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
> David Jencks wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>>
>>> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>>>> <snip/>
>>>> I don't completely agree, I think we need a vote for any release we
>>>> make to
>>>> the Maven repository.
>>>>
>>> This would be overkilling, IMO.
>>
>> I think you should ask on legal discuss if you really want to do
>> that. My understanding is that the legal foundation of the asf
>> involves the strict principle that all releases need to be voted on by
>> the pmc. You might possibly be able to argue that the TLP pom doesn't
>> include any code or anything copyrightable so doesn't need a vote
>> (although I think such arguments are exceedingly weak and the danger
>> of releasing without a vote is far greater than the nuisance of a
>> vote) but IIUC anything with code in it definitely requires a vote.
> We usually don't release the TLP pom per se, it is only released if one
> other part is released, so we _have_ a formal vote (usually :), for the
> encapsulating project (apacheds, here).
Which IMO is in contradiction to your response when I launched a vote some days ago about releasing a TLP pom :-). And
it's stated clearly in the dev doc you pointed me to that no vote is needed to release a TLP pom:
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/NdY, chap. 'Corrective Actions to Properly Use the TLP POM', pt. 6:
"No vote needed for TLP POM release for PMC members - just a notification to release with 4 hour grace period to
accommodate the lack of using SNAPSHOT for this POM"
>
> What happened recently is just a catch up to fix some maven things in
> the TLP pom. We will have to release it if we want to release shared of
> apacheds, but until then, I still think it's unnecessary.
>
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
David Jencks wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
>
>> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>>> <snip/>
>>> I don't completely agree, I think we need a vote for any release we
>>> make to
>>> the Maven repository.
>>>
>> This would be overkilling, IMO.
>
> I think you should ask on legal discuss if you really want to do
> that. My understanding is that the legal foundation of the asf
> involves the strict principle that all releases need to be voted on by
> the pmc. You might possibly be able to argue that the TLP pom doesn't
> include any code or anything copyrightable so doesn't need a vote
> (although I think such arguments are exceedingly weak and the danger
> of releasing without a vote is far greater than the nuisance of a
> vote) but IIUC anything with code in it definitely requires a vote.
We usually don't release the TLP pom per se, it is only released if one
other part is released, so we _have_ a formal vote (usually :), for the
encapsulating project (apacheds, here).
What happened recently is just a catch up to fix some maven things in
the TLP pom. We will have to release it if we want to release shared of
apacheds, but until then, I still think it's unnecessary.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
On Sep 17, 2008, at 2:21 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> <snip/>
>> I don't completely agree, I think we need a vote for any release we
>> make to
>> the Maven repository.
>>
> This would be overkilling, IMO.
I think you should ask on legal discuss if you really want to do
that. My understanding is that the legal foundation of the asf
involves the strict principle that all releases need to be voted on by
the pmc. You might possibly be able to argue that the TLP pom doesn't
include any code or anything copyrightable so doesn't need a vote
(although I think such arguments are exceedingly weak and the danger
of releasing without a vote is far greater than the nuisance of a
vote) but IIUC anything with code in it definitely requires a vote.
>
>> Sometimes people have pending modifications on a project, and
>> having a vote
>> before releasing is a great way to avoid releasing something that
>> is not
>> complete.
>>
> Well, for common jars, I 100% agree (I'm thinking about shared). But
> for daemon, which is used by Server only, it does not seems to be
> necessary.
>> With a vote, the developer will be able to indicate that he needs
>> to apply a
>> few modifications before the release is OK.
>>
> It would be best to add a JIRA, and clean it before the release,
> when we start going for a release. With a pending JIRA, there is no
> way we can release.
>
> Generally speaking, we are not using JIRA enough for relases. Alex
> started to split the roadmap in small parts, and this is a good
> thing. Another good thing would be to add JIRAs for each items of
> those small parts. (I will try to do that today). The biggest
> advantage, beside that it helps us to avoid the situation you are
> describing, is that we will have a complet exposure of all the new
> added features, when we do the announcement.
>> Although, I agree on the fact that we can do grouped votes, like
>> the one I
>> did some time ago, where I launched two releases votes (one for
>> Studio and
>> one for Shared - as Studio depends on it) in a single thread
A vote can IIUC be on any set of stuff to release, however tenuously
related. The important part is that everything that's released gets
a vote.
thanks
david jencks
>>
>>
> +1
>
> --
> --
> cordialement, regards,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> directory.apache.org
>
>
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> <snip/>
> I don't completely agree, I think we need a vote for any release we make to
> the Maven repository.
>
This would be overkilling, IMO.
> Sometimes people have pending modifications on a project, and having a vote
> before releasing is a great way to avoid releasing something that is not
> complete.
>
Well, for common jars, I 100% agree (I'm thinking about shared). But for
daemon, which is used by Server only, it does not seems to be necessary.
> With a vote, the developer will be able to indicate that he needs to apply a
> few modifications before the release is OK.
>
It would be best to add a JIRA, and clean it before the release, when we
start going for a release. With a pending JIRA, there is no way we can
release.
Generally speaking, we are not using JIRA enough for relases. Alex
started to split the roadmap in small parts, and this is a good thing.
Another good thing would be to add JIRAs for each items of those small
parts. (I will try to do that today). The biggest advantage, beside that
it helps us to avoid the situation you are describing, is that we will
have a complet exposure of all the new added features, when we do the
announcement.
> Although, I agree on the fact that we can do grouped votes, like the one I
> did some time ago, where I launched two releases votes (one for Studio and
> one for Shared - as Studio depends on it) in a single thread
>
+1
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
Hi Emmanuel,
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>wrote:
> It's much more a question of who is using the released part. Atm, it's just
> us, the Server. Even studio don't use it.
It's the opposite... ;)
Studio uses it, Server doesn't.
> We have had the very same discussion 2 months ago about shared : should we
> vote on it? Right now, I think we should vote on what is used by more than
> one project, as it gives a chance to avoid problems. So here is the project
> I think we need to vote for :
> - Studio
> - Server
> - Shared
>
> All the other projects (project, plugins, daemon, etc) are only used
> internally by a single project, and are part of a bigger vote. You won't
> release Studio if the studio-plugin is dorked ...
>
> Does it makes sense ?
I don't completely agree, I think we need a vote for any release we make to
the Maven repository.
Sometimes people have pending modifications on a project, and having a vote
before releasing is a great way to avoid releasing something that is not
complete.
With a vote, the developer will be able to indicate that he needs to apply a
few modifications before the release is OK.
Although, I agree on the fact that we can do grouped votes, like the one I
did some time ago, where I launched two releases votes (one for Studio and
one for Shared - as Studio depends on it) in a single thread
Regards,
Pierre-Arnaud
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Felix Knecht wrote:
> Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
>
>> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>> +1 too. But I don't think it deserves a vote :)
>>
>>
> Another thing I've missed in reading the documentation? Or because we
> just use it internally?
> I thought release stuff will need a vote (exept as I've learned TLP pom).
>
It's much more a question of who is using the released part. Atm, it's
just us, the Server. Even studio don't use it.
We have had the very same discussion 2 months ago about shared : should
we vote on it? Right now, I think we should vote on what is used by more
than one project, as it gives a chance to avoid problems. So here is the
project I think we need to vote for :
- Studio
- Server
- Shared
All the other projects (project, plugins, daemon, etc) are only used
internally by a single project, and are part of a bigger vote. You won't
release Studio if the studio-plugin is dorked ...
Does it makes sense ?
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
> Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
>> +1
>>
>
> +1 too. But I don't think it deserves a vote :)
>
Another thing I've missed in reading the documentation? Or because we
just use it internally?
I thought release stuff will need a vote (exept as I've learned TLP pom).
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot wrote:
> +1
>
+1 too. But I don't think it deserves a vote :)
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <pa...@marcelot.net>.
+1
Thanks,
Pierre-Arnaud
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org> wrote:
> Felix Knecht schrieb:
> > After using the studio-plugin for quite a time without any changes
> > needed it seems stable enough to do a first release.
> >
> > This majority vote stays open for 72 hours.
> >
> > Please cast your votes.
> +1
> >
> > Felix
>
>
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Felix Knecht schrieb:
> After using the studio-plugin for quite a time without any changes
> needed it seems stable enough to do a first release.
>
> This majority vote stays open for 72 hours.
>
> Please cast your votes.
+1
>
> Felix
Re: [summary vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Felix Knecht wrote:
> >snip/>
>> Yes, but beside the formal procedure, I would like Alex (who is pretty
>> busy atm) to be able to catch this thread. This is why the 72 hours
>> period is good for.
>>
>
> I was so keen about releasing finally the plugin, but I see the point
> and the problems I'm causing :-(
> And your note about the vote not really be necessary encouraged me even
> more to end the vote as fast as possible. I'm just sometimes too fast,
> but I try to improve.
> I appologize.
>
Don't worry too much :) These are just slight adjustments in order for
everyone to follow the same partition ! And as you said in another mail,
it's easier if the partition is documented ;)
Thanks !
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [summary vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
> Felix Knecht wrote:
>> Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
>>
>>> Felix Knecht wrote:
>>>
>>>> The vote passed and I'll do a release of the studio-plugin.
>>>>
>>> Hmmmm... 72H ?
>>>
>> If I understand correctly (but I'm not a native english) I can determine
>> the vote if I got at least 3 +1:
>> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
>> similar to majority approval
>> <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> --
>> except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at
>> least three +1 votes were registered"
>> :-)
>>
> Yes, but beside the formal procedure, I would like Alex (who is pretty
> busy atm) to be able to catch this thread. This is why the 72 hours
> period is good for.
I was so keen about releasing finally the plugin, but I see the point
and the problems I'm causing :-(
And your note about the vote not really be necessary encouraged me even
more to end the vote as fast as possible. I'm just sometimes too fast,
but I try to improve.
I appologize.
>
> Usually, what we do is to launch the vote, and wait for the 72 hours
> to expire, regardless the number of voters we have. (this is not a
> speed race ;)
>
> Of course, we can also discuss this point further if we want to make
> the rule more explicit. (Sometime, being more formal is better :)
>
Re: [summary vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Felix Knecht wrote:
> Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
>
>> Felix Knecht wrote:
>>
>>> The vote passed and I'll do a release of the studio-plugin.
>>>
>>>
>> Hmmmm... 72H ?
>>
> If I understand correctly (but I'm not a native english) I can determine
> the vote if I got at least 3 +1:
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
> similar to majority approval
> <http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> --
> except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at
> least three +1 votes were registered"
> :-)
>
Yes, but beside the formal procedure, I would like Alex (who is pretty
busy atm) to be able to catch this thread. This is why the 72 hours
period is good for.
Usually, what we do is to launch the vote, and wait for the 72 hours to
expire, regardless the number of voters we have. (this is not a speed
race ;)
Of course, we can also discuss this point further if we want to make the
rule more explicit. (Sometime, being more formal is better :)
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
Re: [summary vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
Emmanuel Lecharny schrieb:
> Felix Knecht wrote:
>> The vote passed and I'll do a release of the studio-plugin.
>>
>
> Hmmmm... 72H ?
If I understand correctly (but I'm not a native english) I can determine
the vote if I got at least 3 +1:
"Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
similar to majority approval
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> --
except that the decision is officially determined solely by whether at
least three +1 votes were registered"
:-)
>> I count at least three +1 votes
>> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, 'Votes on Package
>> Releases')
>> - Felix
>> - Pierre-Arnaud
>> - Emmanuel
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [summary vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Emmanuel Lecharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Felix Knecht wrote:
> The vote passed and I'll do a release of the studio-plugin.
>
Hmmmm... 72H ?
> I count at least three +1 votes
> (http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, 'Votes on Package Releases')
> - Felix
> - Pierre-Arnaud
> - Emmanuel
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
>
>
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
[summary vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Felix Knecht <fe...@apache.org>.
The vote passed and I'll do a release of the studio-plugin.
I count at least three +1 votes
(http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html, 'Votes on Package Releases')
- Felix
- Pierre-Arnaud
- Emmanuel
Regards
Felix
Re: [vote] Release studio-plugin
Posted by Stefan Seelmann <se...@apache.org>.
+1
Felix Knecht schrieb:
> After using the studio-plugin for quite a time without any changes needed it seems stable enough to do a first release.
>
> This majority vote stays open for 72 hours.
>
> Please cast your votes.
>
> Felix