On 8/26/14 4:04 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>No, you can't announce / promote nightly build/snapshots [1]. >" Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage >non-developers to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release >candidates, or any other similar package." > >So That would mean we would need to remove all links from navigation in >the web site? I would even argue that "use" in this content meant put up >content to view on our web site. > >White you're at that link you might also note: >"Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the group >that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside the group >of people on the product dev list." >"Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release." >"Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache software >development." > >This really seams quite clear cut to me. I know it seems clear to you, but other incubator folks disagree with you. Under your interpretation we'll have to run a vote for the badge installer as well. I don't believe we've done that. > >> IMO, having a bug up there for 3 days is a worse quality perception than >> fixing in minutes. > >I'm not seeing those bugs being fixed in minutes. Are you putting your >hand up for that role? If the explorer.xml was not compiled in, flexicious's examples would be hooked up by now. > >>> - Less reason for community to be involved (no RCs to test or vote on) >> Most folks I know want to write code instead of run manual tests. > >Not everyone has the skills or motivation to fix issues in the SDK (or >testing the SDK eg mustella is part of that). Let's try and widen our >talent pool a little and get a few more people involved and use to the >Apache way of doing things. Agreed, TDF might attract a new pool of developers. We are just disagreeing on what the best way of attracting them is. I think trying to attracting them by asking them to do manual testing is not as attractive as asking them to provide TDF fixes. > >>> - No need for a release manager or in fact any further releases >> True, that's another time saving we could spend elsewhere. > >Really? In that case why don't we just move the project to github, that >way we can get rid of all this unnecessary Apache process. :-) Alex as >you know this process is here for a very good reasons and as a PMC member >and the PMC chair you should be promoting it's use, not trying to find >ways to avoid using it. Nobody on the incubator except you seems to think my proposal does not align with the Apache Way. -ALex
