You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> on 2013/05/01 22:17:59 UTC
Is 2.7.0 released?
I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but issues
are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a super
important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone comfortable
with this release".
I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki page
(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
Hmm. These packages are on Apache dist so they constitute an official
Apache release. Apache releases must use majority approval with "at least
three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release, and there must be
more positive than negative votes", see
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what.
Kalle
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Benn Mapes <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for 24 hour notice followed by lazy consensus.
> As long as there is some explicit communication on the mailing of the
> release, that is the important part.
>
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:23 AM, James Jong <wj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Lazy consensus with a day notice before release is reasonable and seems
> > workable to me.
> >
> > -James Jong
> >
> > On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > > To be clear - I didn't actually have anything outstanding for 2.7. But,
> > if
> > > I had - I wouldn't have been a bit thrown off by not knowing the
> release
> > > going out.
> > >
> > > Lazy consensus would have been fine. But we didn't do that. My
> > > understanding of lazy consensus would mean sending an email out saying
> "I
> > > intend to release 2.7 unless anyone has objections. Will wait 24 hours
> > > before doing so.".
> > >
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
> > >
> > > Upwards and onwards! But let's stick to the documented release
> practices
> > > next time, or change them to match what we do.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Simon MacDonald
> > > <si...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was
> too
> > >> late.
> > >>
> > >> Simon Mac Donald
> > >> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <lo...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the
> > release,
> > >>> and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was
> as
> > >>> solid as possible for the month of conferences.
> > >>> These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy
> > release'
> > >>> process.
> > >>>
> > >>> That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the
> right
> > >>> direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations
> happening
> > >>> around the release.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
> > >>>> blocks. lets not.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so
> > >> voting on
> > >>>>> something that is predictable seems overkill.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
> > >>>>> official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private
> > >> list,
> > >>>>> I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer
> lazy
> > >>>>>> consensus to voting.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <
> agrieve@chromium.org
> > >
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we
> need a
> > >>>> vote
> > >>>>>>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy
> > >> consensus
> > >>>>>>>> (as
> > >>>>>>>> with all decisions we make)?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement
> release,
> > >> but
> > >>>>>>>>> issues
> > >>>>>>>>> are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote
> is
> > >> a
> > >>>>>>>> super
> > >>>>>>>>> important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
> > >>>>>>>>> comfortable
> > >>>>>>>>> with this release".
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release
> > wiki
> > >>>>>>>> page
> > >>>>>>>>> (which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Benn Mapes <be...@gmail.com>.
+1 for 24 hour notice followed by lazy consensus.
As long as there is some explicit communication on the mailing of the
release, that is the important part.
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:23 AM, James Jong <wj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lazy consensus with a day notice before release is reasonable and seems
> workable to me.
>
> -James Jong
>
> On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > To be clear - I didn't actually have anything outstanding for 2.7. But,
> if
> > I had - I wouldn't have been a bit thrown off by not knowing the release
> > going out.
> >
> > Lazy consensus would have been fine. But we didn't do that. My
> > understanding of lazy consensus would mean sending an email out saying "I
> > intend to release 2.7 unless anyone has objections. Will wait 24 hours
> > before doing so.".
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
> >
> > Upwards and onwards! But let's stick to the documented release practices
> > next time, or change them to match what we do.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Simon MacDonald
> > <si...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was too
> >> late.
> >>
> >> Simon Mac Donald
> >> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <lo...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the
> release,
> >>> and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as
> >>> solid as possible for the month of conferences.
> >>> These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy
> release'
> >>> process.
> >>>
> >>> That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right
> >>> direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening
> >>> around the release.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
> >>>> blocks. lets not.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>>>> +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so
> >> voting on
> >>>>> something that is predictable seems overkill.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
> >>>>> official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private
> >> list,
> >>>>> I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
> >>>>>> consensus to voting.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a
> >>>> vote
> >>>>>>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy
> >> consensus
> >>>>>>>> (as
> >>>>>>>> with all decisions we make)?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release,
> >> but
> >>>>>>>>> issues
> >>>>>>>>> are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is
> >> a
> >>>>>>>> super
> >>>>>>>>> important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
> >>>>>>>>> comfortable
> >>>>>>>>> with this release".
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release
> wiki
> >>>>>>>> page
> >>>>>>>>> (which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by James Jong <wj...@gmail.com>.
Lazy consensus with a day notice before release is reasonable and seems workable to me.
-James Jong
On May 1, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> To be clear - I didn't actually have anything outstanding for 2.7. But, if
> I had - I wouldn't have been a bit thrown off by not knowing the release
> going out.
>
> Lazy consensus would have been fine. But we didn't do that. My
> understanding of lazy consensus would mean sending an email out saying "I
> intend to release 2.7 unless anyone has objections. Will wait 24 hours
> before doing so.".
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
>
> Upwards and onwards! But let's stick to the documented release practices
> next time, or change them to match what we do.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Simon MacDonald
> <si...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was too
>> late.
>>
>> Simon Mac Donald
>> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <lo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the release,
>>> and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as
>>> solid as possible for the month of conferences.
>>> These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy release'
>>> process.
>>>
>>> That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right
>>> direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening
>>> around the release.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
>>>> blocks. lets not.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>> +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so
>> voting on
>>>>> something that is predictable seems overkill.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
>>>>> official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private
>> list,
>>>>> I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
>>>>>> consensus to voting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a
>>>> vote
>>>>>>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy
>> consensus
>>>>>>>> (as
>>>>>>>> with all decisions we make)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release,
>> but
>>>>>>>>> issues
>>>>>>>>> are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is
>> a
>>>>>>>> super
>>>>>>>>> important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
>>>>>>>>> comfortable
>>>>>>>>> with this release".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki
>>>>>>>> page
>>>>>>>>> (which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>.
To be clear - I didn't actually have anything outstanding for 2.7. But, if
I had - I wouldn't have been a bit thrown off by not knowing the release
going out.
Lazy consensus would have been fine. But we didn't do that. My
understanding of lazy consensus would mean sending an email out saying "I
intend to release 2.7 unless anyone has objections. Will wait 24 hours
before doing so.".
http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus
Upwards and onwards! But let's stick to the documented release practices
next time, or change them to match what we do.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Simon MacDonald
<si...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was too
> late.
>
> Simon Mac Donald
> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <lo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the release,
> > and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as
> > solid as possible for the month of conferences.
> > These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy release'
> > process.
> >
> > That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right
> > direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening
> > around the release.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> >> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
> >> blocks. lets not.
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> > +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so
> voting on
> >> > something that is predictable seems overkill.
> >> >
> >> > If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
> >> > official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private
> list,
> >> > I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
> >> >
> >> > On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
> >> >>consensus to voting.
> >> >>
> >> >>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a
> >> vote
> >> >>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy
> consensus
> >> >>>>(as
> >> >>>> with all decisions we make)?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release,
> but
> >> >>>> >issues
> >> >>>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is
> a
> >> >>>>super
> >> >>>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
> >> >>>> >comfortable
> >> >>>> >with this release".
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki
> >> >>>>page
> >> >>>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Simon MacDonald <si...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was too late.
Simon Mac Donald
http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the release,
> and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as
> solid as possible for the month of conferences.
> These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy release'
> process.
>
> That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right
> direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening
> around the release.
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
>> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
>> blocks. lets not.
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> > +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so voting on
>> > something that is predictable seems overkill.
>> >
>> > If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
>> > official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private list,
>> > I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
>> >
>> > On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
>> >>consensus to voting.
>> >>
>> >>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a
>> vote
>> >>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus
>> >>>>(as
>> >>>> with all decisions we make)?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
>> >>>> >issues
>> >>>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a
>> >>>>super
>> >>>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
>> >>>> >comfortable
>> >>>> >with this release".
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki
>> >>>>page
>> >>>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >
>>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Lorin Beer <lo...@gmail.com>.
I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the release,
and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as
solid as possible for the month of conferences.
These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy release'
process.
That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right
direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening
around the release.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
> blocks. lets not.
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so voting on
> > something that is predictable seems overkill.
> >
> > If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
> > official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private list,
> > I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
> >
> > On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> >>Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
> >>consensus to voting.
> >>
> >>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
> >>wrote:
> >>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a
> vote
> >>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus
> >>>>(as
> >>>> with all decisions we make)?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
> >>>> >issues
> >>>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a
> >>>>super
> >>>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
> >>>> >comfortable
> >>>> >with this release".
> >>>> >
> >>>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki
> >>>>page
> >>>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
blocks. lets not.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so voting on
> something that is predictable seems overkill.
>
> If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
> official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private list,
> I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
>
> On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
>>Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
>>consensus to voting.
>>
>>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>>wrote:
>>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a vote
>>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus
>>>>(as
>>>> with all decisions we make)?
>>>>
>>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
>>>> >issues
>>>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
>>>> >
>>>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a
>>>>super
>>>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
>>>> >comfortable
>>>> >with this release".
>>>> >
>>>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki
>>>>page
>>>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
+1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so voting on
something that is predictable seems overkill.
If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private list,
I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
>consensus to voting.
>
>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>
>wrote:
>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a vote
>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus
>>>(as
>>> with all decisions we make)?
>>>
>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
>>> >issues
>>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
>>> >
>>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a
>>>super
>>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
>>> >comfortable
>>> >with this release".
>>> >
>>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki
>>>page
>>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
>>>
>>>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.
Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
consensus to voting.
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a vote
> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus (as
>> with all decisions we make)?
>>
>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
>> >issues
>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
>> >
>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a super
>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
>> >comfortable
>> >with this release".
>> >
>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki page
>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
>>
>>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>.
Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need a vote
and refers to this "apache way" doc:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus (as
> with all decisions we make)?
>
> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
> >issues
> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
> >
> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a super
> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
> >comfortable
> >with this release".
> >
> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki page
> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.
>
>
Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.
We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy consensus (as
with all decisions we make)?
On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <ag...@chromium.org> wrote:
>I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement release, but
>issues
>are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
>
>I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the vote is a super
>important step because it's our last chance to say "is everyone
>comfortable
>with this release".
>
>I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release wiki page
>(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days :P.