[Cayenne-dev] [VOTE] Release Cayenne 1.2.3 and 2.0.3

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik
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

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

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

-----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

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

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 5/10/07, Andrus Adamchik 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 6:43 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik
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

2.0.3 against

On 5/10/07, Kevin Menard 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

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 . . .

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik
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.

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

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-