On 3/19/14, 3:50 AM, Julian Foad wrote: > The point of an alpha is it's up for testing despite having *known and > unknown* bugs. It would be absurd to wait for a non-show-stopper bug to be > fixed.
Agreed, no reason to hold up for the SASL issue. The https certificate thing was a different matter. > Come to that, it seems over-the-top that we are waiting for as much developer > sign-off on this *alpha* release as we require for a production-quality > release. It's been validated by at least one Unix system and at least one > Windows dev; that's enough for me. Just release it and get the wider testing > under way! It's still a release even if it's an alpha. Subversion's policy is 3 for Windows and 3 for Unix. ASF policy is 3 votes. So we could reduce the requirement to just 3 votes. However, if we really wanted this out there now, without any change in policy, we could do it quickly. Nobody is obligated to do any specific testing in order to grant their vote. I'd say that the minimum effort is to check that the code matches the source branch revision it's supposed to other than the expected differences. Some people are not really going to be comfortable doing just the minimum. But I don't think the vote policy is terribly onerous. The only thing really holding us back here is individual developers decisions to not vote. What those reasons are for not voting, I can't say but I suspect they fall into these categories: * Environmental/Dependency issues (Windows is particularly prone to this because it can be fussy trying to get the setup done). * Someone else will do it. * Too busy.
