On Thursday, 13 February 2014, Joseph Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Change is hard, we aren't a tiny org and we do have an opinion about how > things should be done. That's all I'll say about the git stuff. > > But let's face reality for a moment- Cordova has averaged one release a > month for the past seven months. Why then is a three day window a > dealbreaker? If you are looking to do one release per month, 72h is no problem IMHO If you are looking to do one release every 7 days (assuming there are releasable changes) then 72h + 24h (before announce) is smelling problematic... I am proposing the Maven try weekly releases for our 3.2.x line after we get our first 3.2.x release done and review after 3 months... We'll see what our community feels about that suggestion... It may go nowhere if the community doesn't like it... But I do feel that we are past the point of speculating and that some project needs to try the experiment. > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Feb 13, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Hadrian Zbarcea <hzbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Not sure if it's a mischaracterization. I have the same understanding as > Benson that that many comments on git threads reflected the perception that > git/github are incompatible with ASF. Not the point however. > > > > What I see again is, for the most part, violent agreement that turns > into lengthy threads that have a ddos effect (at least on me). What I get > is that: > > * votes are important, no vote no release (little to debate on that, > given the current bylaws) > > * the community *must* be included, hence the rationale for 72 hours > votes guideline > > * the board is ok with shorter vote windows, provided the release > requirements are met *and* community is included > > * the cordova community is willing to adapt to a process that satisfies > the ASF guidelines, but they would like to preserve their current style of > 'cadence releases' > > > > What I don't get is this: > > * say a community reaches a consensus to provide weekly releases (or > daily, whatever cadence) > > * say that they all know that the voting window is 12 hours (or 1 hour) > starting *always* on Wed as 12 am UTC. > > Then how can one justify a claim that a release was pushed by the > 'people in the room'? Cadence release is not unheard of. There are > communities who release at a cadence of 4 years and the voting window is 24 > hours, the Tue after the first Mon in Nov [1]. > > > > * nobody could claim they are excluded, as the voting window is well > known in advance > > * people (pmc or not) can decide in advance if they have bandwidth to > participate in testing the release and hence voting > > * people can volunteer/announce in advance if they can/will participate > in testing the release, which is what the RM does in any project > > * what goes in the release is dictated by the commits and the community > has plenty of ways to decide how to accomplish that > > * changes are incremental (i.e. whatever changes since last week), so > the volume of work and expectations are known and manageable > > * people can decide what the fate of failed releases is (redo, skip, > etc). > > * a project could even go as far as allowing such 'short' vote cycles > only via a unanimous and time bound (say quarterly) vote in the PMC. This > way a rogue group would only have a limited time to push their interests. A > disenfranchised PMC member could easily -1 short releases for the next > quarter. If the community cares about candence releases, it creates an > incentive for people to play nicely in the community. And there are other > ways, smarter people already suggested. > > > > It is not my place to judge nor my desire to advocate for or against > cadence releases. I saw a bunch of excellent comments and proposals in > these thread(s). Some volunteered to experiment too. What is the problem > with such an elusive solution, really? What is the perceived risk? > > > > My $0.02, > > Hadrian > > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_%28United_States%29 > > > > > >> On 02/13/2014 08:40 AM, Joseph Schaefer wrote: > >> That is a mischaracterization of the git story which was always about > being able to support multiple version control tools. Yes people were > concerned about the social side but we wouldn't be Apache without that > debate. > >> > >> Same here. All you are seeing is some natural skepticism about the > claims being made. The door is open though to a well considered proposal > that this exercise should help refine. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> This conversation goes in a circle. I see two positions: > >>> > >>> 1: Cadence releases are inevitably incompatible with Apache community > values. > >>> 2: Cadence releases are not inevitably incompatible with Apache > >>> community values. > >>> > >>> People who take the first position see this desire to use cadence as > >>> weakening of values and the brand. People who take the second position > >>> are frustrated. > >>> > >>> Note the phrase, 'not inevitably'. No one here is claiming, in the > >>> absence of an experiment, that this idea will inevitably lead to a > >>> perfectly healthy expression of Apache Community values. > >>> > >>> This conversation reminds me of the early days -- Sent from my phone
