You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@fineract.apache.org by Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> on 2025/10/12 01:46:46 UTC
[FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Hello everyone,
We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts below
up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They put
a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum for
future improvements.
Release notes and ChangeLog
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
Source and binary artifacts
<https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
Tagged as 1.13.0
Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
This vote will be open for 72 hours:
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note: PMC
members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts before
submitting their +1 vote.
Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked
out to the release commit, following the form:
Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the
current release candidate verification guidance
<https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
did more than that, please specify.
Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying
on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub
Actions, while exercising my right to vote.
Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
Cheers,
Adam Monsen
--
Adam Monsen
Software Engineer ~ Mifos Initiative
Apache Fineract Release Manager
PGP key id 0xA9A14F22F57DA182
Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org>.
The meeting will be this Wednesday, October 29, at 1400 UTC. Invite
attached. Description:
This is a 30-minute meeting to (a) gather people and ideas and (b) kick off
Fineract release process improvement experiments.
join: https://meet.jit.si/2025-10-29FineractReleaseProcess (please test
device audio & video before call)
agenda & minutes during meeting:
https://pad.disroot.org/p/2025-10-29_Fineract_Release_Process (will be
moved to Fineract wiki after meeting)
Thank you!
-Adam
On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 3:13 PM Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org> wrote:
> Hi tooling users!
>
> I've been doing the past few Apache Fineract
> <https://fineract.apache.org/> releases, and I'm working on improving our
> release process
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/jk2qzjxc89hd1c8xzvhtmlbbj1m8ktbl>. I'm
> here hoping to to attract someone familiar with the ASF release process and
> the ATR tool to a short meeting I'm setting up. We're trying out the ATR
> tool so I think there's some overlap in our interests. The goal of the
> meeting is to get people and ideas together and kick off a few experiments.
>
> If you might be able to join us, please let me know (see below).
>
> Best and thanks,
> -Adam
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org>
> Date: Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 3:01 PM
> Subject: Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
> To: <de...@fineract.apache.org>
>
>
> Thanks Terence, James, and everyone! Great thoughts here. Let's meet up
> and keep this ball rolling. Please go to https://whenisgood.net/yd95b7h
> and let me know which days work for you. Please enter your name. Please
> also enter your preferred email address in the comment.
>
> Or just email me directly / off-list. I'll tally the results in 72hrs and
> send meeting invites. The day choices are:
>
> - Wed Oct 29
> - Thu Oct 30
> - Fri Oct 31
> - Mon Nov 3
> - Tue Nov 4
> - Wed Nov 5
>
> Start time will be 1400 UTC on the day we agree on. Start time is not
> affected by daylight savings -- it'll be 1400 UTC regardless. This is a 30
> minute meeting.
>
Fwd: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org>.
Hi tooling users!
I've been doing the past few Apache Fineract <https://fineract.apache.org/>
releases, and I'm working on improving our release process
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/jk2qzjxc89hd1c8xzvhtmlbbj1m8ktbl>. I'm
here hoping to to attract someone familiar with the ASF release process and
the ATR tool to a short meeting I'm setting up. We're trying out the ATR
tool so I think there's some overlap in our interests. The goal of the
meeting is to get people and ideas together and kick off a few experiments.
If you might be able to join us, please let me know (see below).
Best and thanks,
-Adam
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org>
Date: Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
To: <de...@fineract.apache.org>
Thanks Terence, James, and everyone! Great thoughts here. Let's meet up and
keep this ball rolling. Please go to https://whenisgood.net/yd95b7h and let
me know which days work for you. Please enter your name. Please also enter
your preferred email address in the comment.
Or just email me directly / off-list. I'll tally the results in 72hrs and
send meeting invites. The day choices are:
- Wed Oct 29
- Thu Oct 30
- Fri Oct 31
- Mon Nov 3
- Tue Nov 4
- Wed Nov 5
Start time will be 1400 UTC on the day we agree on. Start time is not
affected by daylight savings -- it'll be 1400 UTC regardless. This is a 30
minute meeting.
Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org>.
The meeting will be this Wednesday, October 29, at 1400 UTC. Invite
attached. Description:
This is a 30-minute meeting to (a) gather people and ideas and (b) kick off
Fineract release process improvement experiments.
join: https://meet.jit.si/2025-10-29FineractReleaseProcess (please test
device audio & video before call)
agenda & minutes during meeting:
https://pad.disroot.org/p/2025-10-29_Fineract_Release_Process (will be
moved to Fineract wiki after meeting)
Thank you!
-Adam
On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 3:01 PM Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org> wrote:
> Thanks Terence, James, and everyone! Great thoughts here. Let's meet up
> and keep this ball rolling. Please go to https://whenisgood.net/yd95b7h
> and let me know which days work for you. Please enter your name. Please
> also enter your preferred email address in the comment.
>
> Or just email me directly / off-list. I'll tally the results in 72hrs and
> send meeting invites. The day choices are:
>
> - Wed Oct 29
> - Thu Oct 30
> - Fri Oct 31
> - Mon Nov 3
> - Tue Nov 4
> - Wed Nov 5
>
> Start time will be 1400 UTC on the day we agree on. Start time is not
> affected by daylight savings -- it'll be 1400 UTC regardless. This is a 30
> minute meeting.
>
Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Adam Monsen <am...@mifos.org>.
Thanks Terence, James, and everyone! Great thoughts here. Let's meet up and
keep this ball rolling. Please go to https://whenisgood.net/yd95b7h and let
me know which days work for you. Please enter your name. Please also enter
your preferred email address in the comment.
Or just email me directly / off-list. I'll tally the results in 72hrs and
send meeting invites. The day choices are:
- Wed Oct 29
- Thu Oct 30
- Fri Oct 31
- Mon Nov 3
- Tue Nov 4
- Wed Nov 5
Start time will be 1400 UTC on the day we agree on. Start time is not
affected by daylight savings -- it'll be 1400 UTC regardless. This is a 30
minute meeting.
Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Terence Monteiro <te...@gmail.com>.
Hi James,
On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 3:40 AM James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Please note this —>
>
> https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-trusted-releases-platform-begins-second-alpha
>
> This is the ATR project I previously prepared. Rather than creating our
> own, we should piggyback on this.
>
Thanks for sharing this. I had watched Dave Fisher's interview on recent
tooling improvements he led as VP of Tooling at the ASF. This was recorded
at the Community Over Code event last month at Minneapolis by Rich Bowen.
I'm also on the tooling mailing list and my suggestion is to take the path
of least resistance. Use tools where available and don't reinvent the
wheel. Only when we start using the tools will we get to know if it helps
achieve our goals or whether there are gaps which we need to fill beyond
the available tooling. This is my intuition based on experience - many
tools are not one-size-fits-all.
-Terence
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 7:33 AM Terence Monteiro <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>> Thanks for your detailed explanation and thoughts on the release process
>> and verification part and process for Committers and PMC members to vote on
>> the release. I'm interested in discussing how we can automate and
>> streamline the release process. My own approach this time was instead of
>> using one of my existing machines, spawn a VM specifically to build
>> fineract. Everything I did to build and verify the release involved
>> commands and zero mouse clicks. So I can see a path where by documenting
>> these steps and writing scripts, the process can be streamlined. If you
>> want to schedule a call, I'm interested.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Terence Monteiro.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Arnold,
>>>
>>> Good questions/feedback, thank you. I want to leverage your insight here
>>> to improve the release process. I'll go into detail for posterity. I
>>> imagine given your tenure on the project some of this will be review.
>>>
>>> Here's specifically what I've asked folks to do while voting on a rc
>>> (release candidate):
>>>
>>> 1. verify rc checksums and signatures
>>> 2. build Fineract from rc src artifact
>>> 3. run Fineract from the compiled rc bin artifact
>>>
>>> This is detailed in our docs
>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/1.13.0/#_artifact_verification>. It
>>> stems from ASF release approval policy
>>> <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>:
>>>
>>> *Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download
>>> all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they
>>> meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below,
>>> validate all cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the
>>> result on their own platform.*
>>>
>>> We started formalizing all this about 7 months ago -- for 1.10.1rc
>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/cs5t0ho39ktg2jxr74dqd7fg9nyfcz3k> because
>>> I had the exact same question you did: What does *test* mean in this
>>> context?
>>>
>>> First can we agree that verifying rc checksums and signatures and
>>> building rc src artifact are all straightforward requirements?
>>>
>>> If so, then we're back to the ambiguous: *test*. I read *test* as: *Make
>>> sure the binary rc artifact works*, for you, as you understand it
>>> should. To be painfully explicit: Anticipate someone else will download and
>>> run the binary once/if it is promoted to a release and do yourself what
>>> they'll do, taking into account known issues. Not: Repeat what we do in CI.
>>> We're not expecting voters do any functional testing against the rc.
>>>
>>> Hence, the new-ish "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" section in rc vote emails. *It's
>>> my interpretation of what the ASF says its projects must do*. And I
>>> agree with James: "Tested" is not the right word here. "Verified" would be
>>> better. I'll change that.
>>>
>>> But I want to change more.
>>>
>>> *Overall I think our release process is inefficient and robust*.
>>> Especially when we all vote. It's one thing for a release manager to go
>>> through the steps and it's not hard once you get the hang of it, but I
>>> don't love the parts of the rc vote beyond everyone just sending their
>>> +1/-1. *I'm confident we can make it more efficient and just as robust*,
>>> still meeting ASF policy with less of, e.g., the manual rc verification we
>>> now do and just a more sensible release process overall. Maybe with some
>>> simple automation, but maybe not just that.
>>>
>>> I want to have a meeting to gather ideas to streamline releases, because
>>> y'all know things I don't and policy affects us all.
>>>
>>> I'm not looking forward to onboarding the next release manager. I don't
>>> want them to have to just repeat what I've done. I'd rather hand them
>>> something wonderfully improved and say "hey look how easy we made your job!
>>> just click RELEASE and you're good" or something like that. Heck, maybe we
>>> won't need a release manager at all if we judo this creatively. Plenty of
>>> projects ship robust releases far more often than we do.
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Wanna meet up?
>>>
>>> -Adam
>>> On 10/20/25 12:16, Arnold Galovics wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 from me too, but when people say "tested", do we know what kind of
>>> testing is supposed to happen? I feel like we just have this feeling of the
>>> package being tested, but in reality it cannot be considered actual
>>> functional verification (if that's what's supposed to happen).
>>>
>>> In my mind, functional testing is part of the pipeline and every commit
>>> making into the develop branch has to pass all the tests, it's a quality
>>> gate. Therefore by logic, whatever commit we pick for releasing is passing
>>> the quality gates hence no need for manual testing. What am I missing?
>>>
>>> ( original "[FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release" thread
>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/bm9cynvrvvb1mvp7pc05v1zy5zo4h0hs> )
>>>
>>> ( original "release process improvement" thread
>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/f99mhvxg9l3wz17thmwonvgn6vyz05vq> )
>>>
>>
Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Please note this —>
https://news.apache.org/foundation/entry/apache-trusted-releases-platform-begins-second-alpha
This is the ATR project I previously prepared. Rather than creating our
own, we should piggyback on this.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 7:33 AM Terence Monteiro <te...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Adam,
>
> Thanks for your detailed explanation and thoughts on the release process
> and verification part and process for Committers and PMC members to vote on
> the release. I'm interested in discussing how we can automate and
> streamline the release process. My own approach this time was instead of
> using one of my existing machines, spawn a VM specifically to build
> fineract. Everything I did to build and verify the release involved
> commands and zero mouse clicks. So I can see a path where by documenting
> these steps and writing scripts, the process can be streamlined. If you
> want to schedule a call, I'm interested.
>
> Regards,
> Terence Monteiro.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Arnold,
>>
>> Good questions/feedback, thank you. I want to leverage your insight here
>> to improve the release process. I'll go into detail for posterity. I
>> imagine given your tenure on the project some of this will be review.
>>
>> Here's specifically what I've asked folks to do while voting on a rc
>> (release candidate):
>>
>> 1. verify rc checksums and signatures
>> 2. build Fineract from rc src artifact
>> 3. run Fineract from the compiled rc bin artifact
>>
>> This is detailed in our docs
>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/1.13.0/#_artifact_verification>. It
>> stems from ASF release approval policy
>> <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>:
>>
>> *Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download
>> all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they
>> meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below,
>> validate all cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the
>> result on their own platform.*
>>
>> We started formalizing all this about 7 months ago -- for 1.10.1rc
>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/cs5t0ho39ktg2jxr74dqd7fg9nyfcz3k> because
>> I had the exact same question you did: What does *test* mean in this
>> context?
>>
>> First can we agree that verifying rc checksums and signatures and
>> building rc src artifact are all straightforward requirements?
>>
>> If so, then we're back to the ambiguous: *test*. I read *test* as: *Make
>> sure the binary rc artifact works*, for you, as you understand it
>> should. To be painfully explicit: Anticipate someone else will download and
>> run the binary once/if it is promoted to a release and do yourself what
>> they'll do, taking into account known issues. Not: Repeat what we do in CI.
>> We're not expecting voters do any functional testing against the rc.
>>
>> Hence, the new-ish "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" section in rc vote emails. *It's
>> my interpretation of what the ASF says its projects must do*. And I
>> agree with James: "Tested" is not the right word here. "Verified" would be
>> better. I'll change that.
>>
>> But I want to change more.
>>
>> *Overall I think our release process is inefficient and robust*.
>> Especially when we all vote. It's one thing for a release manager to go
>> through the steps and it's not hard once you get the hang of it, but I
>> don't love the parts of the rc vote beyond everyone just sending their
>> +1/-1. *I'm confident we can make it more efficient and just as robust*,
>> still meeting ASF policy with less of, e.g., the manual rc verification we
>> now do and just a more sensible release process overall. Maybe with some
>> simple automation, but maybe not just that.
>>
>> I want to have a meeting to gather ideas to streamline releases, because
>> y'all know things I don't and policy affects us all.
>>
>> I'm not looking forward to onboarding the next release manager. I don't
>> want them to have to just repeat what I've done. I'd rather hand them
>> something wonderfully improved and say "hey look how easy we made your job!
>> just click RELEASE and you're good" or something like that. Heck, maybe we
>> won't need a release manager at all if we judo this creatively. Plenty of
>> projects ship robust releases far more often than we do.
>>
>> Thoughts? Wanna meet up?
>>
>> -Adam
>> On 10/20/25 12:16, Arnold Galovics wrote:
>>
>> +1 from me too, but when people say "tested", do we know what kind of
>> testing is supposed to happen? I feel like we just have this feeling of the
>> package being tested, but in reality it cannot be considered actual
>> functional verification (if that's what's supposed to happen).
>>
>> In my mind, functional testing is part of the pipeline and every commit
>> making into the develop branch has to pass all the tests, it's a quality
>> gate. Therefore by logic, whatever commit we pick for releasing is passing
>> the quality gates hence no need for manual testing. What am I missing?
>>
>> ( original "[FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release" thread
>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/bm9cynvrvvb1mvp7pc05v1zy5zo4h0hs> )
>>
>> ( original "release process improvement" thread
>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/f99mhvxg9l3wz17thmwonvgn6vyz05vq> )
>>
>
Re: release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Terence Monteiro <te...@gmail.com>.
Hi Adam,
Thanks for your detailed explanation and thoughts on the release process
and verification part and process for Committers and PMC members to vote on
the release. I'm interested in discussing how we can automate and
streamline the release process. My own approach this time was instead of
using one of my existing machines, spawn a VM specifically to build
fineract. Everything I did to build and verify the release involved
commands and zero mouse clicks. So I can see a path where by documenting
these steps and writing scripts, the process can be streamlined. If you
want to schedule a call, I'm interested.
Regards,
Terence Monteiro.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 5:00 AM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnold,
>
> Good questions/feedback, thank you. I want to leverage your insight here
> to improve the release process. I'll go into detail for posterity. I
> imagine given your tenure on the project some of this will be review.
>
> Here's specifically what I've asked folks to do while voting on a rc
> (release candidate):
>
> 1. verify rc checksums and signatures
> 2. build Fineract from rc src artifact
> 3. run Fineract from the compiled rc bin artifact
>
> This is detailed in our docs
> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/1.13.0/#_artifact_verification>. It
> stems from ASF release approval policy
> <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>:
>
> *Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform.*
>
> We started formalizing all this about 7 months ago -- for 1.10.1rc
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/cs5t0ho39ktg2jxr74dqd7fg9nyfcz3k> because
> I had the exact same question you did: What does *test* mean in this
> context?
>
> First can we agree that verifying rc checksums and signatures and building
> rc src artifact are all straightforward requirements?
>
> If so, then we're back to the ambiguous: *test*. I read *test* as: *Make
> sure the binary rc artifact works*, for you, as you understand it should.
> To be painfully explicit: Anticipate someone else will download and run the
> binary once/if it is promoted to a release and do yourself what they'll do,
> taking into account known issues. Not: Repeat what we do in CI. We're not
> expecting voters do any functional testing against the rc.
>
> Hence, the new-ish "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" section in rc vote emails. *It's
> my interpretation of what the ASF says its projects must do*. And I agree
> with James: "Tested" is not the right word here. "Verified" would be
> better. I'll change that.
>
> But I want to change more.
>
> *Overall I think our release process is inefficient and robust*.
> Especially when we all vote. It's one thing for a release manager to go
> through the steps and it's not hard once you get the hang of it, but I
> don't love the parts of the rc vote beyond everyone just sending their
> +1/-1. *I'm confident we can make it more efficient and just as robust*,
> still meeting ASF policy with less of, e.g., the manual rc verification we
> now do and just a more sensible release process overall. Maybe with some
> simple automation, but maybe not just that.
>
> I want to have a meeting to gather ideas to streamline releases, because
> y'all know things I don't and policy affects us all.
>
> I'm not looking forward to onboarding the next release manager. I don't
> want them to have to just repeat what I've done. I'd rather hand them
> something wonderfully improved and say "hey look how easy we made your job!
> just click RELEASE and you're good" or something like that. Heck, maybe we
> won't need a release manager at all if we judo this creatively. Plenty of
> projects ship robust releases far more often than we do.
>
> Thoughts? Wanna meet up?
>
> -Adam
> On 10/20/25 12:16, Arnold Galovics wrote:
>
> +1 from me too, but when people say "tested", do we know what kind of
> testing is supposed to happen? I feel like we just have this feeling of the
> package being tested, but in reality it cannot be considered actual
> functional verification (if that's what's supposed to happen).
>
> In my mind, functional testing is part of the pipeline and every commit
> making into the develop branch has to pass all the tests, it's a quality
> gate. Therefore by logic, whatever commit we pick for releasing is passing
> the quality gates hence no need for manual testing. What am I missing?
>
> ( original "[FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release" thread
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/bm9cynvrvvb1mvp7pc05v1zy5zo4h0hs> )
>
> ( original "release process improvement" thread
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/f99mhvxg9l3wz17thmwonvgn6vyz05vq> )
>
release process improvement (was: 🗳 1.13.0 for release)
Posted by Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>.
Hi Arnold,
Good questions/feedback, thank you. I want to leverage your insight here
to improve the release process. I'll go into detail for posterity. I
imagine given your tenure on the project some of this will be review.
Here's specifically what I've asked folks to do while voting on a rc
(release candidate):
1. verify rc checksums and signatures
2. build Fineract from rc src artifact
3. run Fineract from the compiled rc bin artifact
This is detailed in our docs
<https://fineract.apache.org/docs/1.13.0/#_artifact_verification>. It
stems from ASF release approval policy
<https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>:
/Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to
download all signed source code packages onto their own hardware,
verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as
described below, validate all cryptographic signatures, compile as
provided, and test the result on their own platform./
We started formalizing all this about 7 months ago -- for 1.10.1rc
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/cs5t0ho39ktg2jxr74dqd7fg9nyfcz3k> because
I had the exact same question you did: What does /test/ mean in this
context?
First can we agree that verifying rc checksums and signatures and
building rc src artifact are all straightforward requirements?
If so, then we're back to the ambiguous: /test/. I read /test/ as: *Make
sure the binary rc artifact works*, for you, as you understand it
should. To be painfully explicit: Anticipate someone else will download
and run the binary once/if it is promoted to a release and do yourself
what they'll do, taking into account known issues. Not: Repeat what we
do in CI. We're not expecting voters do any functional testing against
the rc.
Hence, the new-ish "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" section in rc vote emails.
*It's my interpretation of what the ASF says its projects must do*. And
I agree with James: "Tested" is not the right word here. "Verified"
would be better. I'll change that.
But I want to change more.
*Overall I think our release process is inefficient and robust*.
Especially when we all vote. It's one thing for a release manager to go
through the steps and it's not hard once you get the hang of it, but I
don't love the parts of the rc vote beyond everyone just sending their
+1/-1. *I'm confident we can make it more efficient and just as robust*,
still meeting ASF policy with less of, e.g., the manual rc verification
we now do and just a more sensible release process overall. Maybe with
some simple automation, but maybe not just that.
I want to have a meeting to gather ideas to streamline releases, because
y'all know things I don't and policy affects us all.
I'm not looking forward to onboarding the next release manager. I don't
want them to have to just repeat what I've done. I'd rather hand them
something wonderfully improved and say "hey look how easy we made your
job! just click RELEASE and you're good" or something like that. Heck,
maybe we won't need a release manager at all if we judo this creatively.
Plenty of projects ship robust releases far more often than we do.
Thoughts? Wanna meet up?
-Adam
On 10/20/25 12:16, Arnold Galovics wrote:
> +1 from me too, but when people say "tested", do we know what kind of
> testing is supposed to happen? I feel like we just have this feeling
> of the package being tested, but in reality it cannot be considered
> actual functional verification (if that's what's supposed to happen).
>
> In my mind, functional testing is part of the pipeline and every
> commit making into the develop branch has to pass all the tests, it's
> a quality gate. Therefore by logic, whatever commit we pick for
> releasing is passing the quality gates hence no need for manual
> testing. What am I missing?
( original "[FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release" thread
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/bm9cynvrvvb1mvp7pc05v1zy5zo4h0hs> )
( original "release process improvement" thread
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/f99mhvxg9l3wz17thmwonvgn6vyz05vq> )
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by James Dailey <ja...@gmail.com>.
Arnold - “Verified” is the proper term in my opinion.
See what I wrote
Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the server, got
the expected responses)
I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
Binding (PMC member)
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 12:18 PM Arnold Galovics <
arnold_galovics@docktape.com> wrote:
> Guys,
>
> +1 from me too, but when people say "tested", do we know what kind of
> testing is supposed to happen? I feel like we just have this feeling of the
> package being tested, but in reality it cannot be considered actual
> functional verification (if that's what's supposed to happen).
>
> In my mind, functional testing is part of the pipeline and every commit
> making into the develop branch has to pass all the tests, it's a quality
> gate. Therefore by logic, whatever commit we pick for releasing is passing
> the quality gates hence no need for manual testing. What am I missing?
>
> Best,
> Arnold
>
> Arnold Gálovics
>
> *CEO, Co-Founder*
>
> *+36 30 904 1885*
>
> https://docktape.com
>
> Docktape Technologies
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 6:02 PM Terence Monteiro <te...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> For the record,
>> GPG key verification successful as well
>>
>> -Terence Monteiro
>> Member, PMC
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 9:04 PM Terence Monteiro <
>> terence.placker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 binding
>>> Verified SHA512 checksums
>>> Build successful on Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS
>>> Got warnings (attached STDERR log)
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Terence Monteiro.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM Ahmed Adel <a7...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> Tested: YES
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ahmed Adel
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 16:34, Felix van Hove <fv...@gmx.de.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified keys, started server,
>>>>> tested
>>>>> responses via Swagger)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/10/2025 22:21, Ed Cable wrote:
>>>>> > +1, not tested
>>>>> > PMC member
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
>>>>> > victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> +1
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> - Verified: YES
>>>>> >> - I have tested the functionality.
>>>>> >> - PMC member
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
>>>>> >> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> +1, not tested
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the
>>>>> server,
>>>>> >>>> got the expected responses)
>>>>> >>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>>>>> >>>> Binding (PMC member)
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for
>>>>> nearly
>>>>> >>>> a week. *
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we
>>>>> need
>>>>> >>>> you to verify the release.
>>>>> >>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>>>>> >>>> instructions please.
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> +1, Tested: NO
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Regards,
>>>>> >>>>> Bharath
>>>>> >>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>>>>> >>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>>>>> >>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>>>>> >>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>>>>> >>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <
>>>>> meonkeys@apache.org>
>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the
>>>>> artifacts
>>>>> >>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of
>>>>> reasons: They
>>>>> >>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build
>>>>> momentum
>>>>> >>>>>> for future improvements.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>>>> >>>>>> <
>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>>>> >>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>>>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary
>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC).
>>>>> Note:
>>>>> >>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the
>>>>> artifacts
>>>>> >>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have
>>>>> locally
>>>>> >>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code
>>>>> checked out
>>>>> >>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release
>>>>> artifacts
>>>>> >>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything
>>>>> mentioned in the current
>>>>> >>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>>>> >>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>.
>>>>> If you
>>>>> >>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g.
>>>>> relying
>>>>> >>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of
>>>>> GitHub Actions,
>>>>> >>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Arnold Galovics <ar...@docktape.com>.
Guys,
+1 from me too, but when people say "tested", do we know what kind of
testing is supposed to happen? I feel like we just have this feeling of the
package being tested, but in reality it cannot be considered actual
functional verification (if that's what's supposed to happen).
In my mind, functional testing is part of the pipeline and every commit
making into the develop branch has to pass all the tests, it's a quality
gate. Therefore by logic, whatever commit we pick for releasing is passing
the quality gates hence no need for manual testing. What am I missing?
Best,
Arnold
Arnold Gálovics
*CEO, Co-Founder*
*+36 30 904 1885*
https://docktape.com
Docktape Technologies
On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 6:02 PM Terence Monteiro <te...@apache.org>
wrote:
> For the record,
> GPG key verification successful as well
>
> -Terence Monteiro
> Member, PMC
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 9:04 PM Terence Monteiro <
> terence.placker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 binding
>> Verified SHA512 checksums
>> Build successful on Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS
>> Got warnings (attached STDERR log)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Terence Monteiro.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM Ahmed Adel <a7...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> Tested: YES
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ahmed Adel
>>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 16:34, Felix van Hove <fv...@gmx.de.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified keys, started server, tested
>>>> responses via Swagger)
>>>>
>>>> On 17/10/2025 22:21, Ed Cable wrote:
>>>> > +1, not tested
>>>> > PMC member
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
>>>> > victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> +1
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - Verified: YES
>>>> >> - I have tested the functionality.
>>>> >> - PMC member
>>>> >>
>>>> >> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
>>>> >> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> +1, not tested
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the
>>>> server,
>>>> >>>> got the expected responses)
>>>> >>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>>>> >>>> Binding (PMC member)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for
>>>> nearly
>>>> >>>> a week. *
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we
>>>> need
>>>> >>>> you to verify the release.
>>>> >>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>>>> >>>> instructions please.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> +1, Tested: NO
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Regards,
>>>> >>>>> Bharath
>>>> >>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>>>> >>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>>>> >>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>>>> >>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>>>> >>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <meonkeys@apache.org
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the
>>>> artifacts
>>>> >>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of
>>>> reasons: They
>>>> >>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build
>>>> momentum
>>>> >>>>>> for future improvements.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>>> >>>>>> <
>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract
>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>>> >>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary
>>>> artifacts.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC).
>>>> Note:
>>>> >>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the
>>>> artifacts
>>>> >>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have
>>>> locally
>>>> >>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code
>>>> checked out
>>>> >>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release
>>>> artifacts
>>>> >>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything
>>>> mentioned in the current
>>>> >>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>>> >>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>.
>>>> If you
>>>> >>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g.
>>>> relying
>>>> >>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of
>>>> GitHub Actions,
>>>> >>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] [RESULT] 🧾 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Aleksandar Vidakovic <ch...@monkeysintown.com>.
ah... didn't have that on the radar... I thought they were always
binding... good to know
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 5:33 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
> That was my thought at first as well, but see the release approval policy
> <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>:
>
> *Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform.*
>
> Given that, I believe our total is still 3 binding +1s and 6 non-binding
> +1s.
>
> Related discussion in chat (deep in a 1.13.0 thread)
> <https://mifos.slack.com/archives/C028634A61L/p1760569267218199?thread_ts=1760292408.958529&cid=C028634A61L>
> .
>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] [RESULT] 🧾 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>.
That was my thought at first as well, but see the release approval
policy <https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval>:
/Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to
download all signed source code packages onto their own hardware,
verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as
described below, validate all cryptographic signatures, compile as
provided, and test the result on their own platform./
Given that, I believe our total is still 3 binding +1s and 6 non-binding
+1s.
Related discussion in chat (deep in a 1.13.0 thread)
<https://mifos.slack.com/archives/C028634A61L/p1760569267218199?thread_ts=1760292408.958529&cid=C028634A61L>.
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] [RESULT] 🧾 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Aleksandar Vidakovic <ch...@monkeysintown.com>.
... small correction:
Binding +1:
1. James Dailey
2. Victor Manuel Romero Rodriguez
3. Terence Monteiro
4. Bharath Gowda
5. Ed Cable
6. Aleksandar Vidakovic
Non binding +1s:
1. Adam Monsen
2. Felix van Hove
3. Ahmed adel
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 5:03 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
> Voting is now closed and has passed with the following tally,
>
> Binding +1s: *3*
> Non binding +1s: *6*
>
> Here are the detailed results:
>
> Binding +1s:
>
> 1. James Dailey
> 2. Victor Manuel Romero Rodriguez
> 3. Terence Monteiro
>
> Non binding +1s:
>
> 1. Adam Monsen
> 2. Bharath Gowda
> 3. Aleksandar Vidakovic
> 4. Ed Cable
> 5. Felix van Hove
> 6. Ahmed adel
>
> Thanks to everyone who voted! I'll now continue with the rest of the
> release process.
> Adam Monsen
>
> --
> Adam Monsen
> Software Engineer ~ Mifos Initiative
> Apache Fineract Release Manager
> PGP key id 0xA9A14F22F57DA182
>
>
[FINERACT] [VOTE] [RESULT] 🧾 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>.
Voting is now closed and has passed with the following tally,
Binding +1s: *3*
Non binding +1s: *6*
Here are the detailed results:
Binding +1s:
1. James Dailey
2. Victor Manuel Romero Rodriguez
3. Terence Monteiro
Non binding +1s:
1. Adam Monsen
2. Bharath Gowda
3. Aleksandar Vidakovic
4. Ed Cable
5. Felix van Hove
6. Ahmed adel
Thanks to everyone who voted! I'll now continue with the rest of the
release process.
Adam Monsen
--
Adam Monsen
Software Engineer ~ Mifos Initiative
Apache Fineract Release Manager
PGP key id 0xA9A14F22F57DA182
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Terence Monteiro <te...@apache.org>.
For the record,
GPG key verification successful as well
-Terence Monteiro
Member, PMC
On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 9:04 PM Terence Monteiro <te...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 binding
> Verified SHA512 checksums
> Build successful on Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS
> Got warnings (attached STDERR log)
>
> Regards,
> Terence Monteiro.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM Ahmed Adel <a7...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>> Tested: YES
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ahmed Adel
>>
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 16:34, Felix van Hove <fv...@gmx.de.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified keys, started server, tested
>>> responses via Swagger)
>>>
>>> On 17/10/2025 22:21, Ed Cable wrote:
>>> > +1, not tested
>>> > PMC member
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
>>> > victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> +1
>>> >>
>>> >> - Verified: YES
>>> >> - I have tested the functionality.
>>> >> - PMC member
>>> >>
>>> >> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
>>> >> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
>>> >>
>>> >>> +1, not tested
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the
>>> server,
>>> >>>> got the expected responses)
>>> >>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>>> >>>> Binding (PMC member)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for
>>> nearly
>>> >>>> a week. *
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we
>>> need
>>> >>>> you to verify the release.
>>> >>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>>> >>>> instructions please.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> +1, Tested: NO
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Regards,
>>> >>>>> Bharath
>>> >>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>>> >>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>>> >>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>>> >>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>>> >>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>
>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
>>> >>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of
>>> reasons: They
>>> >>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build
>>> momentum
>>> >>>>>> for future improvements.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>> >>>>>> <
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract
>>> >
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>> >>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary
>>> artifacts.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC).
>>> Note:
>>> >>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the
>>> artifacts
>>> >>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have
>>> locally
>>> >>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code
>>> checked out
>>> >>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release
>>> artifacts
>>> >>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned
>>> in the current
>>> >>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>> >>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>.
>>> If you
>>> >>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g.
>>> relying
>>> >>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of
>>> GitHub Actions,
>>> >>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Terence Monteiro <te...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding
Verified SHA512 checksums
Build successful on Ubuntu 22.04.4 LTS
Got warnings (attached STDERR log)
Regards,
Terence Monteiro.
On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 8:17 PM Ahmed Adel <a7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
> Tested: YES
>
> Regards,
> Ahmed Adel
>
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 16:34, Felix van Hove <fv...@gmx.de.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified keys, started server, tested
>> responses via Swagger)
>>
>> On 17/10/2025 22:21, Ed Cable wrote:
>> > +1, not tested
>> > PMC member
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
>> > victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> - Verified: YES
>> >> - I have tested the functionality.
>> >> - PMC member
>> >>
>> >> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
>> >> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
>> >>
>> >>> +1, not tested
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the
>> server,
>> >>>> got the expected responses)
>> >>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>> >>>> Binding (PMC member)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for
>> nearly
>> >>>> a week. *
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need
>> >>>> you to verify the release.
>> >>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>> >>>> instructions please.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> +1, Tested: NO
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>> Bharath
>> >>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>> >>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>> >>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>> >>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>> >>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hello everyone,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
>> >>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of
>> reasons: They
>> >>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build
>> momentum
>> >>>>>> for future improvements.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>> >>>>>> <
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract
>> >
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>> >>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary
>> artifacts.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC).
>> Note:
>> >>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the
>> artifacts
>> >>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have
>> locally
>> >>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code
>> checked out
>> >>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release
>> artifacts
>> >>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned
>> in the current
>> >>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>> >>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If
>> you
>> >>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g.
>> relying
>> >>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub
>> Actions,
>> >>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >
>>
>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Ahmed Adel <a7...@gmail.com>.
+1
Tested: YES
Regards,
Ahmed Adel
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 16:34, Felix van Hove <fv...@gmx.de.invalid>
wrote:
> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified keys, started server, tested
> responses via Swagger)
>
> On 17/10/2025 22:21, Ed Cable wrote:
> > +1, not tested
> > PMC member
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
> > victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> - Verified: YES
> >> - I have tested the functionality.
> >> - PMC member
> >>
> >> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
> >> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
> >>
> >>> +1, not tested
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the
> server,
> >>>> got the expected responses)
> >>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
> >>>> Binding (PMC member)
> >>>>
> >>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for
> nearly
> >>>> a week. *
> >>>>
> >>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need
> >>>> you to verify the release.
> >>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
> >>>> instructions please.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1, Tested: NO
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Bharath
> >>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
> >>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
> >>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
> >>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
> >>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
> >>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of
> reasons: They
> >>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build
> momentum
> >>>>>> for future improvements.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
> >>>>>> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
> >>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary
> artifacts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note:
> >>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the
> artifacts
> >>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have
> locally
> >>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code
> checked out
> >>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release
> artifacts
> >>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned
> in the current
> >>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
> >>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If
> you
> >>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g.
> relying
> >>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub
> Actions,
> >>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >
>
>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Felix van Hove <fv...@gmx.de.INVALID>.
+1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified keys, started server, tested
responses via Swagger)
On 17/10/2025 22:21, Ed Cable wrote:
> +1, not tested
> PMC member
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
> victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> - Verified: YES
>> - I have tested the functionality.
>> - PMC member
>>
>> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
>> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
>>
>>> +1, not tested
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the server,
>>>> got the expected responses)
>>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>>>> Binding (PMC member)
>>>>
>>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for nearly
>>>> a week. *
>>>>
>>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need
>>>> you to verify the release.
>>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>>>> instructions please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1, Tested: NO
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bharath
>>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
>>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They
>>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum
>>>>>> for future improvements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note:
>>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts
>>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
>>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked out
>>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
>>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the current
>>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
>>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying
>>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub Actions,
>>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Ed Cable <ed...@mifos.org>.
+1, not tested
PMC member
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 1:10 PM VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <
victor.romero@fintecheando.mx> wrote:
> +1
>
> - Verified: YES
> - I have tested the functionality.
> - PMC member
>
> El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
> cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
>
>> +1, not tested
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the server,
>>> got the expected responses)
>>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>>> Binding (PMC member)
>>>
>>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for nearly
>>> a week. *
>>>
>>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need
>>> you to verify the release.
>>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>>> instructions please.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, Tested: NO
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bharath
>>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
>>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They
>>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum
>>>>> for future improvements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>>>>>
>>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note:
>>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts
>>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
>>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked out
>>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
>>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the current
>>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
>>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying
>>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub Actions,
>>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>>>>
>>>>>
--
*Ed Cable*
President/CEO, Mifos Initiative
edcable@mifos.org | Skype: edcable | Mobile: +1.484.477.8649
*Collectively Creating a World of 3 Billion Maries | *http://mifos.org
<http://facebook.com/mifos> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by VICTOR MANUEL ROMERO RODRIGUEZ <vi...@fintecheando.mx>.
+1
- Verified: YES
- I have tested the functionality.
- PMC member
El vie, 17 oct 2025 a las 13:50, Aleksandar Vidakovic (<
cheetah@monkeysintown.com>) escribió:
> +1, not tested
>
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the server,
>> got the expected responses)
>> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
>> Binding (PMC member)
>>
>> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for nearly a
>> week. *
>>
>> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need you
>> to verify the release.
>> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
>> instructions please.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, Tested: NO
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bharath
>>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
>>>> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They
>>>> put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum
>>>> for future improvements.
>>>>
>>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>>>>
>>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>>>
>>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>>>
>>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>>>>
>>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note:
>>>> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts
>>>> before submitting their +1 vote.
>>>>
>>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
>>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked out
>>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>>>
>>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
>>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the current
>>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
>>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>>>
>>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying
>>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub Actions,
>>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>>>
>>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>>>
>>>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Aleksandar Vidakovic <ch...@monkeysintown.com>.
+1, not tested
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 8:54 PM James Dailey <jd...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the server,
> got the expected responses)
> I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
> Binding (PMC member)
>
> *We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for nearly a
> week. *
>
> And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need you
> to verify the release.
> If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
> instructions please.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
>
>> +1, Tested: NO
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bharath
>> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
>> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
>> Mobile: +91.7019635592
>> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
>> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1, Tested: YES
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts below
>>> up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They put a
>>> stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum for
>>> future improvements.
>>>
>>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>>>
>>> Source and binary artifacts
>>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>>
>>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>>
>>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>>
>>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>>>
>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note: PMC
>>> members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts before
>>> submitting their +1 vote.
>>>
>>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
>>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked out
>>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>>
>>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
>>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the current
>>> release candidate verification guidance
>>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
>>> did more than that, please specify.
>>>
>>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying
>>> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub Actions,
>>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>>
>>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>>
>>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by James Dailey <jd...@apache.org>.
+1, Verified: YES (built locally, verified the keys, started the server,
got the expected responses)
I did not test the functionality, but the build passes tests.
Binding (PMC member)
*We need at least three binding votes. Voting has been open for nearly a
week. *
And, we would like others to do this, even if not on the PMC, we need you
to verify the release.
If you are new to the list, give it a try. See start of thread for
instructions please.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 5:47 AM Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org> wrote:
> +1, Tested: NO
>
> Regards,
> Bharath
> Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
> PMC Member | Apache Fineract
> Mobile: +91.7019635592
> http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
> <http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1, Tested: YES
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts below
>> up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They put a
>> stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum for
>> future improvements.
>>
>> Release notes and ChangeLog
>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>>
>> Source and binary artifacts
>> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>>
>> Tagged as 1.13.0
>>
>> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>>
>> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note: PMC
>> members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts before
>> submitting their +1 vote.
>>
>> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
>> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked out
>> to the release commit, following the form:
>>
>> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
>> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the current
>> release candidate verification guidance
>> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
>> did more than that, please specify.
>>
>> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying on
>> testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub Actions,
>> while exercising my right to vote.
>>
>> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>>
>>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Bharath Gowda <bg...@mifos.org>.
+1, Tested: NO
Regards,
Bharath
Lead Implementation Analyst | Mifos Initiative
PMC Member | Apache Fineract
Mobile: +91.7019635592
http://mifos.org <http://facebook.com/mifos>
<http://www.twitter.com/mifos>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:42 PM Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1, Tested: YES
>
>
> On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts below
> up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons: They put a
> stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build momentum for
> future improvements.
>
> Release notes and ChangeLog
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>
> Source and binary artifacts
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>
> Tagged as 1.13.0
>
> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>
> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note: PMC
> members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts before
> submitting their +1 vote.
>
> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked out
> to the release commit, following the form:
>
> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in the current
> release candidate verification guidance
> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you did
> more than that, please specify.
>
> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying on
> testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub Actions,
> while exercising my right to vote.
>
> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>
>
Re: [FINERACT] [VOTE] 🗳 1.13.0 for release
Posted by Adam Monsen <me...@apache.org>.
+1, Tested: YES
On 10/11/25 18:46, Adam Monsen wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> We are proud to present Apache Fineract 1.13.0, with the artifacts
> below up for a vote. Releases are important for a number of reasons:
> They put a stamp of approval on a set of code changes and they build
> momentum for future improvements.
>
> Release notes and ChangeLog
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FINERACT/1.13.0+-+Apache+Fineract>
>
> Source and binary artifacts
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/1.13.0/>
>
> Tagged as 1.13.0
>
> Committer PGP keys, including the release signing key:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/fineract/KEYS
>
> Note that this release candidate contains source and binary artifacts.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Please indicate if you are a binding vote (member of the PMC). Note:
> PMC members are required to download, compile, and test the artifacts
> before submitting their +1 vote.
>
> Please also indicate with "Tested: YES/NO/PARTIAL" if you have locally
> built and/or tested these artifacts and/or a clone of the code checked
> out to the release commit, following the form:
>
> Tested: YES ... Verified integrity and signatures of release artifacts
> locally, built from source, ran jar/war: Did everything mentioned in
> the current release candidate verification guidance
> <https://fineract.apache.org/docs/rc/#_artifact_verification>. If you
> did more than that, please specify.
>
> Tested: NO ... No testing performed on release candidate, e.g. relying
> on testing performed by other contributors and/or output of GitHub
> Actions, while exercising my right to vote.
>
> Tested: PARTIAL ... Please specify.
>