Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [locationtech-pmc] Vote on Self-Approving CQs and more GeoMesa CQs
Sounds reasonable to me. How about all libraries CQs that are just version upgrades without license changes? Or am I asking for too much? 

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 11:15 AM Jim Hughes <jhughes@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,

Two topics:

1. From discussion with the Eclipse Architecture Council, we as a PMC
can decide our rules of engagement for +1'ing CQs.

I'd like to propose that we allow PMC members to +1 their own CQs. 
Discussion / votes on that matter?

2.  For GeoMesa, we have a handful of CQs to get +1...  They are
upgrades from previous versions.

com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core:2.9.10
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21839
com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations:2.9.10
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21838
com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind:2.9.10.3
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21840
com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-cbor:2.9.10
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21841
io.netty:netty-common:4.1.48.Final
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21843
io.netty:netty-buffer:4.1.48.Final
https://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21842

Thanks in advance,

Jim

_______________________________________________
locationtech-pmc mailing list
locationtech-pmc@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/locationtech-pmc
--
Grigory Pomadchin
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/grpomadchin

Back to the top