You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> on 2007/05/07 18:18:00 UTC
[VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
I'd like to start a vote on the 1.2.3 and 2.0.3 releases. Release
artifacts we are voting on are available here:
http://people.apache.org/~torehalset/release/1.2.3/
http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.3/
As a reminder, only 2.0.3 release must fully adhere to the ASF legal
guidelines; 1.2.3 will be posted on SourceForge and is a legacy
compatibility release. Please review and vote.
Thanks
Andrus
Re: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
+1
On May 7, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I'd like to start a vote on the 1.2.3 and 2.0.3 releases. Release
> artifacts we are voting on are available here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~torehalset/release/1.2.3/
> http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.3/
>
> As a reminder, only 2.0.3 release must fully adhere to the ASF
> legal guidelines; 1.2.3 will be posted on SourceForge and is a
> legacy compatibility release. Please review and vote.
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On May 10, 2007, at 6:43 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
> I *could* just add an obligatory +1, but
> that doesn't feel right and I was hoping others had more time to do
> abetter
> checkout.
agreed
> The only thing I noticed when I took a very quick cursory look is
> that the 1.2.3 release Tore put together doesn't have checksum
> files, but I
> consider this a non-issue.
Yep - we just following our old pre-apache release procedure that
didn't include checksums or sigs.
Andrus
Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Michael Gentry <bl...@gmail.com>.
I've been too busy (work and personal) to check out the release artifacts,
which is why I haven't chimed in. I *could* just add an obligatory +1, but
that doesn't feel right and I was hoping others had more time to do abetter
checkout. The only thing I noticed when I took a very quick cursory look is
that the 1.2.3 release Tore put together doesn't have checksum files, but I
consider this a non-issue.
Thanks,
/dev/mrg
On 5/10/07, Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> Talking of which - we need one more vote from a PMC member. Any of
> the remaining members have time to check the release and vote?
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 10, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> > IMO you are correct - only PMC member votes are binding. But there
> > are two things to note in this respect: (1) input from committers
> > is always taken into account - I don't think there's been instances
> > when we ignored such input on matters requiring a vote; (2) PMC is
> > not some elite caste - IMO we should expand/contract it as needed
> > to include people who contribute to the project and to the
> > community. And in fact I am planning to act on item (2).
> >
> > Andrus
> >
> >
> > On May 10, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> >> Hmm . . . I just reviewed the voting procedure and noticed that
> >> technically my +1 is non-binding. Do we make the distinction between
> >> PMC members and committers for project releases?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kevin
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Kevin Menard
> >>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:32 PM
> >>> To: 'dev@cayenne.apache.org'
> >>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
> >>>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested 2.0.3
> >>> against HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All
> >>> worked for me.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Kevin
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Talking of which - we need one more vote from a PMC member. Any of
the remaining members have time to check the release and vote?
Andrus
On May 10, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> IMO you are correct - only PMC member votes are binding. But there
> are two things to note in this respect: (1) input from committers
> is always taken into account - I don't think there's been instances
> when we ignored such input on matters requiring a vote; (2) PMC is
> not some elite caste - IMO we should expand/contract it as needed
> to include people who contribute to the project and to the
> community. And in fact I am planning to act on item (2).
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 10, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>> Hmm . . . I just reviewed the voting procedure and noticed that
>> technically my +1 is non-binding. Do we make the distinction between
>> PMC members and committers for project releases?
>>
>> --
>> Kevin
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Kevin Menard
>>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:32 PM
>>> To: 'dev@cayenne.apache.org'
>>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested 2.0.3
>>> against HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All
>>> worked for me.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kevin
>>
>
>
RE: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:45 AM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3
> and 2.0.3)
>
> I think we'll just give it more time until one other member
> has a chance to review the release. 72 hours is a minimal
> time for vote closing, but we can reasonably extend it to
> accommodate people's schedules.
Right. At the same time, hopefully a little prodding might help a
release sitting in limbo. I didn't want anyone to think that my +1
meant that we had the three necessary.
--
Kevin
Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
On May 10, 2007, at 6:38 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> The bigger issue is that in about an hour the
> vote will have been open for 72 hours and as of now there have only
> been
> two binding votes cast; three are necessary for the vote to pass . . .
I think we'll just give it more time until one other member has a
chance to review the release. 72 hours is a minimal time for vote
closing, but we can reasonably extend it to accommodate people's
schedules.
Andrus
Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
The vote should be open at least 72 hours, but it can be open as long
as necessary.
I will try to find time to look at the release tonight, but I have a
lot of non-computer-related issues to deal with at this time.
On 5/10/07, Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the response. My concern certainly wasn't either points 1 or
> 2 that you addressed. The bigger issue is that in about an hour the
> vote will have been open for 72 hours and as of now there have only been
> two binding votes cast; three are necessary for the vote to pass . . .
>
> --
> Kevin
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:29 AM
> > To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3
> > and 2.0.3)
> >
> > IMO you are correct - only PMC member votes are binding. But
> > there are two things to note in this respect: (1) input from
> > committers is always taken into account - I don't think
> > there's been instances when we ignored such input on matters
> > requiring a vote; (2) PMC is not some elite caste - IMO we
> > should expand/contract it as needed to include people who
> > contribute to the project and to the community.
> > And in fact I am planning to act on item (2).
> >
> > Andrus
> >
> >
> > On May 10, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> > > Hmm . . . I just reviewed the voting procedure and noticed that
> > > technically my +1 is non-binding. Do we make the
> > distinction between
> > > PMC members and committers for project releases?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kevin
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Kevin Menard
> > >> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:32 PM
> > >> To: 'dev@cayenne.apache.org'
> > >> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested
> > 2.0.3 against
> > >> HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All worked for me.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Kevin
> > >
> >
> >
>
RE: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Thanks for the response. My concern certainly wasn't either points 1 or
2 that you addressed. The bigger issue is that in about an hour the
vote will have been open for 72 hours and as of now there have only been
two binding votes cast; three are necessary for the vote to pass . . .
--
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 11:29 AM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3
> and 2.0.3)
>
> IMO you are correct - only PMC member votes are binding. But
> there are two things to note in this respect: (1) input from
> committers is always taken into account - I don't think
> there's been instances when we ignored such input on matters
> requiring a vote; (2) PMC is not some elite caste - IMO we
> should expand/contract it as needed to include people who
> contribute to the project and to the community.
> And in fact I am planning to act on item (2).
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 10, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> > Hmm . . . I just reviewed the voting procedure and noticed that
> > technically my +1 is non-binding. Do we make the
> distinction between
> > PMC members and committers for project releases?
> >
> > --
> > Kevin
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevin Menard
> >> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:32 PM
> >> To: 'dev@cayenne.apache.org'
> >> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested
> 2.0.3 against
> >> HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All worked for me.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Kevin
> >
>
>
Re: Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
IMO you are correct - only PMC member votes are binding. But there
are two things to note in this respect: (1) input from committers is
always taken into account - I don't think there's been instances when
we ignored such input on matters requiring a vote; (2) PMC is not
some elite caste - IMO we should expand/contract it as needed to
include people who contribute to the project and to the community.
And in fact I am planning to act on item (2).
Andrus
On May 10, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> Hmm . . . I just reviewed the voting procedure and noticed that
> technically my +1 is non-binding. Do we make the distinction between
> PMC members and committers for project releases?
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevin Menard
>> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'dev@cayenne.apache.org'
>> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
>>
>> +1
>>
>> FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested 2.0.3
>> against HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All
>> worked for me.
>>
>> --
>> Kevin
>
Binding votes (WAS: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3)
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Hmm . . . I just reviewed the voting procedure and noticed that
technically my +1 is non-binding. Do we make the distinction between
PMC members and committers for project releases?
--
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Menard
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: 'dev@cayenne.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
>
> +1
>
> FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested 2.0.3
> against HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All
> worked for me.
>
> --
> Kevin
Re: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
Bill, thanks for chiming in. So now we can officially close the vote
with the following results:
Kevin Menard +1
Tore Halset +1 (PMC)
Andrus Adamchik +1 (PMC)
Bill Dudney +1 (PMC)
I will publish the artifacts and make an announcement (hopefully)
tomorrow.
Thanks
Andrus
On May 15, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Bill Dudney wrote:
> Looks good,
>
> +1 on both.
>
> The doc/index.html both have a link to 'Commercial Support' that
> gets a 404 on our site;
>
> http://cayenne.apache.org/cayenne-commercial-support.html
>
> Great work!
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
> On May 7, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>> I'd like to start a vote on the 1.2.3 and 2.0.3 releases. Release
>> artifacts we are voting on are available here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~torehalset/release/1.2.3/
>> http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.3/
>>
>> As a reminder, only 2.0.3 release must fully adhere to the ASF
>> legal guidelines; 1.2.3 will be posted on SourceForge and is a
>> legacy compatibility release. Please review and vote.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andrus
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
Looks good,
+1 on both.
The doc/index.html both have a link to 'Commercial Support' that gets
a 404 on our site;
http://cayenne.apache.org/cayenne-commercial-support.html
Great work!
TTFN,
-bd-
On May 7, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I'd like to start a vote on the 1.2.3 and 2.0.3 releases. Release
> artifacts we are voting on are available here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~torehalset/release/1.2.3/
> http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.3/
>
> As a reminder, only 2.0.3 release must fully adhere to the ASF
> legal guidelines; 1.2.3 will be posted on SourceForge and is a
> legacy compatibility release. Please review and vote.
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
Re: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
Posted by Tore Halset <ha...@pvv.ntnu.no>.
+1
I have tested 1.2.3 with Derby, PostgreSQL and HSQLDB. All worked
fine after I learned that cayenne unit tests need a PostgreSQL base
with plpgsql.
- Tore.
On May 7, 2007, at 18:18, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> I'd like to start a vote on the 1.2.3 and 2.0.3 releases. Release
> artifacts we are voting on are available here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~torehalset/release/1.2.3/
> http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.3/
>
> As a reminder, only 2.0.3 release must fully adhere to the ASF
> legal guidelines; 1.2.3 will be posted on SourceForge and is a
> legacy compatibility release. Please review and vote.
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>
RE: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
+1
FYI, I was involved in the release process and tested 2.0.3 against
HSQLDB, Derby, PostgreSQL 8.2, and MySQL 5. All worked for me.
--
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 12:18 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3
>
> I'd like to start a vote on the 1.2.3 and 2.0.3 releases.
> Release artifacts we are voting on are available here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~torehalset/release/1.2.3/
> http://people.apache.org/~aadamchik/release/2.0.3/
>
> As a reminder, only 2.0.3 release must fully adhere to the
> ASF legal guidelines; 1.2.3 will be posted on SourceForge and
> is a legacy compatibility release. Please review and vote.
>
> Thanks
> Andrus
>