I agree that it is very useful to check the binary builds. It is very important to hear about those.
The question is what it takes to provide a binding +1. - Dennis > -----Original Message----- > From: Andrea Pescetti [mailto:pesce...@apache.org] > Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 17:18 > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: [RISK?] Official Apache Release Policy Implications > > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED > > to download all signed source code packages onto their own > > hardware, verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy > > on releases as described below, validate all cryptographic > > signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their > > own platform." > > > > This is not new. > > Yes, this is not new. This has always been the rule. No risks here. > Well, a PMC member could prefer to just take a quick look, for > compliance, at the source package and then use one of the binary > packages for the acceptance test. But, given that there are enough PMC > members who go through the expected process, it is still valuable to get > feedback from other people who only tried binary builds. > > As you noted, the importance of binary builds for OpenOffice is totally > different than for other Apache projects, so we respect the generic > rules but we also want binary builds to be evaluated; and if someone can > only test binary builds, this is still very useful. > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
