On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the
packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?
ASF release processes work because people can vote however they want.
I don't want to create a *rule* that says people that vote can't vote
in some way for some reason.
The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.
When the
Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we ought to
focus on
actual requirements, such as:
Licensing
Notification
Signing (if we choose to enforce this)
...
The infrastructure team (see mirroring documents) requires release
signing. It's an ASF-wide thing.
And what those actual requirements are should be documented so that
the
projects aren't surprised when submitting their request. If we
decide to
add requirements, we should agree to add them to the release
requirements
document.
Agreed?
Yes, I like having good documentation to refer to ("-1, go RTFM on
releases"). As long as the above "should"s remain "should"s in the
RFC sense (eg not "must"s) I agree.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
