On 6 December 2013 20:55, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey < >> mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: >> >> >>> ... Second, I'm amused that the "commits list" item was quietly >> dropped, >> >>> but new checklist items have been inserted regarding the dev and >> private >> >>> lists... >> >> >> >> Pure oversight on my part, sorry...but what would we do if no reviewer >> >> follows the commit lists? I don't think that's a reason to kill a >> release. >> > >> > Oversight of the commit list is vital; that is how we ensure that SCM >> > only contains material that is permitted. >> > >> > The source release is then checked against SCM to ensure we are only >> > published vetted material. >> > >> > If there is no review of the commit list, then the whole system breaks >> down. >> >> I certainly agree that following the commits list is essential (and sought >> to >> emphasize as much in the post at the top of the thread). I'd barely even >> considered the possibility that *none* of the reviewers might be following >> the commits list. >> >> However, I think that Bertrand's "provenance" checklist item largely >> achieves >> what I'd been grasping for with the "commits list" item, and fits much >> better >> into the context of approving the release. If nobody's following the >> commits >> list, that's an issue with serious implications for the project, but it's >> not >> a direct release blocker. If provenance is unsettled, though, that clearly >> blocks the release. >> >> Personally, I wouldn't feel confident checking the "provenance" item if I >> wasn't watching the commits list. It's true that the person making the >> commit >> affirms that they have the right to their contribution, but still, I feel >> like >> you need to at least be aware of what contributions have gone into the >> product. >> >> Maybe there ought to be a note to such effect on the explanations page. >> But >> in any case, I'm OK with the "commits list" item disappearing, so long as >> the >> "provenance" item stays. >> >> As of revision 14 (removing the "dev list" and "private list" items) I'm >> now >> generally satisfied with the content of the checklist items and hope to >> move >> on to refining the workflow and surrounding documentation. >> >> >> > All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be > documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests > its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should > go get consensus around that with the wider ASF and get the ASF doc updated. > > Podling releases are not quite the same as TLP releases, thats why they > have the DISCLAIMER and "incubating" naming. I think we should be making it > easier for podlings to do releases, if its really necessary then make an > audit of the last release a requirement of graduation. > > ...ant
+1 I don't see why releasing in incubator must be more complicated than in TLPs and have more rules. We have a lot of pending votes and I see you guys discussing about rules why not spend your times on having a look at those votes... And with such discussion we don't look very attractive. Isn't the goal of the ASF to have a lot of project developed here? Sorry personally I don't have time to read/participate the whole thread as I prefer to spend my time on writing softwares. But my participation could be: is it possible to add something in the verification checklist as "Build great/usable software for our lovely users" Cheers -- /me tired reading all of this over complicated administrative threads... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
