You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tiles.apache.org by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com> on 2010/07/08 10:21:12 UTC
[VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Please consider the promotion of Tiles 3 and related projects from
sandbox to the main development trunk.
The projects involved in this promotion are:
Tiles request microframework:
http://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/tiles/sandbox/trunk/tiles-request/
Tiles Autotag: http://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/tiles/sandbox/trunk/tiles-autotag/
Tiles 3: http://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/tiles/sandbox/trunk/tiles3/
JIRA components:
Tiles request microframework and Tiles 3:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TILESSB/component/12313360
Tiles Autotag: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TILESSB/component/12313361
If you have had a chance to review the sanboxed projects, please respond with
a vote on their promotion in the following way:
+1: let's promote them!
+0: tend to agree on the promotion, but had no chance to review the
projects deeply;
-0: tend to disagree on the promotion, but won't veto it;
-1: don't promote them (please explain why).
Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
Antonio
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
Ok since there is no clear advancement in the vote, I'll wait until
the most of you made up an idea on the project.
This is no problem for me, since currently I am a bit busy
revolutionizing Velocity :-D
Thanks
Antonio
2010/7/13 Mck <mi...@semb.wever.org>:
> +0
>
>> I'm voting +0 because that option completely describes me. I do not
>> believe a +0 should hold up the vote though.
>
> Put me in that exact same boat.
> But i'm most definitely looking forward to checking and trying it out!
>
> ~mck
>
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Mck <mi...@semb.wever.org>.
+0
> I'm voting +0 because that option completely describes me. I do not
> believe a +0 should hold up the vote though.
Put me in that exact same boat.
But i'm most definitely looking forward to checking and trying it out!
~mck
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you have had a chance to review the sanboxed projects, please respond with
> a vote on their promotion in the following way:
>
> +1: let's promote them!
> +0: tend to agree on the promotion, but had no chance to review the
> projects deeply;
> -0: tend to disagree on the promotion, but won't veto it;
> -1: don't promote them (please explain why).
I'm voting +0 because that option completely describes me. I do not
believe a +0 should hold up the vote though. I have every intention of
looking deeper into this code, but the honest truth is now I only know
of the ideas behind it and I think they are sound.
Greg
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please consider the promotion of Tiles 3 and related projects from
> sandbox to the main development trunk.
>
> The projects involved in this promotion are:
> Tiles request microframework:
> http://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/tiles/sandbox/trunk/tiles-request/
> Tiles Autotag: http://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/tiles/sandbox/trunk/tiles-autotag/
> Tiles 3: http://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/tiles/sandbox/trunk/tiles3/
>
> JIRA components:
> Tiles request microframework and Tiles 3:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TILESSB/component/12313360
> Tiles Autotag: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TILESSB/component/12313361
>
> If you have had a chance to review the sanboxed projects, please respond with
> a vote on their promotion in the following way:
>
> +1: let's promote them!
> +0: tend to agree on the promotion, but had no chance to review the
> projects deeply;
> -0: tend to disagree on the promotion, but won't veto it;
> -1: don't promote them (please explain why).
>
> Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
> members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
> three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
>
> Antonio
>
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Mck <mc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Before i post another vote to move sandbox to trunk.
> It is necessary to have binding votes only from PMC for this particular
> non-release-related vote?
Nope, in fact it doesn't *really* need a vote, (unless we have project
guidelines somewhere that say it does,) just consensus on moving it
out of sandbox and where to put it.
For example it might make sense to call it the tiles-3.x branch until
everyone is comfortable with it being "the" Tiles trunk. But it's all
just directories in subversion, so it's easy to move around.
--
Wendy
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2011/6/22 Mck <mc...@apache.org>
> On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 10:30 +0200, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> > However the only thing that we may worry about is the number of binding
> > votes, the vote passes if there are at least 3 binding +1.
>
> Yes that was my worry.
> I was simply questioning the need for such formality?
> Moving sandbox to trunk can be considered just a "commit", a large
> commit that's looking for broader peer-review. But it doesn't require
> the formality of the release process does it?
>
Probably not, moving sandboxed stuff to trunk is a reversable operation
after all.
Antonio
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Mck <mc...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 10:30 +0200, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> However the only thing that we may worry about is the number of binding
> votes, the vote passes if there are at least 3 binding +1.
Yes that was my worry.
I was simply questioning the need for such formality?
Moving sandbox to trunk can be considered just a "commit", a large
commit that's looking for broader peer-review. But it doesn't require
the formality of the release process does it?
Anyway it was more a question of curiosity...
~mck
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Nathan Bubna <nb...@gmail.com>.
Only releases need 3 +1 votes. All other votes are lazy majority. :)
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:30 AM, Antonio Petrelli
<an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/6/22 Mck <mc...@apache.org>
>
>> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:21 +0200, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
>> >
>> > Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
>> > members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
>> > three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
>> >
>>
>> Before i post another vote to move sandbox to trunk.
>> It is necessary to have binding votes only from PMC for this particular
>> non-release-related vote?
>>
>>
> AFAIK binding votes are only from PMC members, however votes from committers
> are taken seriously, don't worry :-) I think that no PMC is so sadistic to
> vote against a well done job.
> However the only thing that we may worry about is the number of binding
> votes, the vote passes if there are at least 3 binding +1.
>
> Antonio
>
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2011/6/22 Mck <mc...@apache.org>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:21 +0200, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
> >
> > Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
> > members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
> > three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
> >
>
> Before i post another vote to move sandbox to trunk.
> It is necessary to have binding votes only from PMC for this particular
> non-release-related vote?
>
>
AFAIK binding votes are only from PMC members, however votes from committers
are taken seriously, don't worry :-) I think that no PMC is so sadistic to
vote against a well done job.
However the only thing that we may worry about is the number of binding
votes, the vote passes if there are at least 3 binding +1.
Antonio
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Mck <mc...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 10:21 +0200, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
>
> Everyone who has tested the build is invited to vote. Votes by PMC
> members are considered binding. A vote passes if there are at least
> three binding +1s and more +1s than -1s.
>
Before i post another vote to move sandbox to trunk.
It is necessary to have binding votes only from PMC for this particular
non-release-related vote?
~mck
Re: [VOTE] Promote Tiles 3 from sandbox
Posted by Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>.
2010/7/8 Antonio Petrelli <an...@gmail.com>:
> +1: let's promote them!
+1
Antonio