From general-return-50254-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Jul 16 16:59:29 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A131B187FB for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 91660 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jul 2015 16:59:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 91415 invoked by uid 500); 16 Jul 2015 16:59:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 91403 invoked by uid 99); 16 Jul 2015 16:59:27 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id E6193181A37 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.12 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.12 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-us-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jvg2BnLqQABH for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com (mail-la0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by mx1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 11A3420EFB for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by laem6 with SMTP id m6so47193774lae.0 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6BAVKU00xDEnIz6tVWz3EKMyIThnSNpoA5sGGEx/T4A=; b=1EWLnaobSZBwwIonOzDWYztYUV7Qnx+9CFXwe+uzjpwZkdzrOFhnyE1P1BY49JBSh2 o1p6QvCqJ3LVw1LcfpeZ3zLca1kkHpzBe7HfXaGsrgZDjF0A2OHydKJi/ZJNo3BTI7Zg fwXcPNe0uEVVLSyD9Lhxblakq7voYNJEO5lYCqQpP+MgYQDezNC8XcO/Z/5EVDXbHtrt qa6LpjKT25GvUw9JpRejHa33BOKwfgsszuPo7CliP6aybuvPyVPehs4QUM5zr0o6wm5o s2s2hZSCNVGRpS1Ro2O5MsgAbD+NMYTdcZZovTkXuMFeUJJgXdAz9lOv58rNG5M2P0TE V+CQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.224.4 with SMTP id qy4mr1620838lbc.20.1437065958570; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.149.167 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4C228491-AED5-45BF-9359-991A7E96D750@classsoftware.com> <55A76F95.2040208@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:59:18 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating From: =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A9dric_Champeau?= To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2015-07-16 18:49 GMT+02:00 Roman Shaposhnik : > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Emmanuel L=C3=A9charny wrote: >> Le 16/07/15 10:41, Justin Mclean a =C3=A9crit : >>> Hi, >>> >>>> This vote passes with 4 binding "+1" votes, no "0" notes, and 2 "-1" >>>> binding votes. >>> If you read carefully I think you find there were 3 -1 votes on the bin= ary releases. >> >> True. I -1 the binary release. Interesting case : should we release if >> we have as many -1 than +1 ? > > Personally, I'm disappointed in the podling for not taking > care of feedback that seems really easy to take care of. > Again, saying we don't take this seriously is at best an error and honestly unfair. We take it very seriously and I am very disappointed that you think we don't. If you look at the commits, you will see that we started fixing those issues *before* the release vote was finished. We *deserved* a release for the community and *it was critical*. The reasons why were explained on private@, and we could *not* afford another 2x72 voting period + 24h mitigation period, that could also potentially fail the IPMC vote (yes, because despite the fact that we fixed all issues reported for our first trial, the second had undetected errors too). Also, why having rules for votes if you don't follow them? Like it or not, it passed the vote. Not releasing would not have been serious, and we could have missed the short timeframe we have given the vacations of the team. It's also unfair because we took *very seriously* the comments for the first attempt of the release, a few weeks ago, and fixed *all of them* (and did even more than what you asked us to do). So I think our community deserved that release more than having the perfect L&N files (especially because as we said, the License file contains more, but not less, than required), and as Paul said, all jars produces *do* have them. > That's my strong expectation as well. If we're doing this whole > mentoring thing -- lets do it right. I sincerely hope my position is understood this time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org