Hi, > -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that > owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of our > binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens. It published on the Flex web site by Flex committers give access by the ASF I'd read that as not being "beyond the group". Or are you saying we need to vote every time we make a change to the web site or wiki?
> -Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials > needed to make changes to the software being released." Everything is contained in the source and anyone can download and build the installer so that is covered as well. I would agree there would the issue if any file was owned or hosted by a 3rd party. This is not the case, > -From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. > The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all > legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and > every release is the product of the community as a whole. This installer is the product of the community I don't see how anyone could claim otherwise so again I don't believe there is an issue here either. > As much as we want to get this release out the door, the fact is it is more > important to make sure we are following policy. We are following policy the installer will be put up for a vote and released in the normal way. If you really think that the above is the case then I can't see how we will ever be able to release the installer or even make the 4.9 release announcement and having a 2 or 3 vote process is just too much to ask of most committers limited time. I see the only options are, unles syou have a better idea, is to remove the installer out of Apache or abandon it and insist that users compile the SDK from scratch. Justin
