rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Franklin, Matthew B." <mfrank...@mitre.org>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate
Date Fri, 09 Dec 2011 02:38:18 GMT

>________________________________________
>From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mfranklin@mitre.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 5:36 PM
>To: rave-dev@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Franklin, Matthew B. [mailto:mfranklin@mitre.org]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 7:41 AM
>>To: rave-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Rave 0.6-incubating Release Candidate
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>I've now created a patch which, if needed, can be applied also to the
>>>0.6-incubating release/tag sources as well as has been applied already to
>>>trunk.
>>>See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAVE-382
>>>
>>>Based on this fix and documented workaround for (only) the 0.6-incubating
>>>binary
>>>demo (see RAVE-382), I'm going to vote +1 on this release candidate now,
>>>under
>>>the provision we'll provide an updated README (or add a RELEASE_NOTES?)
>>>with the
>>>release, both in the binary distribution and on the website.
>>>This should also point users to RAVE-382 and its patch with instructions how
>>to
>>>manually fix the releases sources if needed
>>
>>I will repack the demo binaries with the updated RELEASE notes and pointers
>>on the website later today
>
>Or tomorrow..... Sorry, I was overcome by events today.  Since we are waiting on our other
mentors to vote on the >release, I have time :)

Updated README in binary release and uploaded to build location.  

>
>>
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Ate
>>>
>>>> Ate
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or stated another way -- I don't see any reason why other projects that
>>>have
>>>>> been building on Rave should have to miss out on this release due to
a
>>>>> configuration problem which probably wouldn't even affect them (or if
it
>>>did,
>>>>> with proper documentation of known issues for the release, could be
>>>easily
>>>> worked around).
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to be clear: regardless my vote, if you get a majority and +3
IPMC
>>>votes
>>>>>> this release can be regarded successfully.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ate
>>>>
>>
Mime
View raw message