Hi,
In general you should wait a minimum of 3 days, but if there an urgent security
fix then that can be ignored. 3 days gives people in different time zones or
who don’t work full time on the project a chance to respond and be involved in
the project. A lot of releases taken more than 3 days.
Thanks Hans for the link. I knew there was a 3 day requirement, I just wasn't
sure where it was documented.
I looked at the general list again and I was incorrect. The votes seem to
always adhere to the 3 day rule.
On 2023/07/01 11:45:49 hans.van.akel...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi PJ,
>
> If we loo
Hi PJ,
If we look at the Release policy it states that it SHOULD remain open for at
least 72 hours [1].
In case we are talking about an emergency release/patch the 72 hours rule can
be ignored.
Cheers,
Hans
[1] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval
On 1 Jul 2023 at
On 6/4/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:17:46AM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> > Let's write a piece of software to do the auditing for us.
>
> How do you propose to do this? How do you propose to audit the code and
> know which pieces of
On 6/3/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/2/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like the idea of automation.
>
> What would be even more helpful would be a default Apache project
> setup, with a maven release target that builds a release in the right
> format.
>
> If
On 6/2/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(this is a rant and the beginnings of a proposal which has nothing to do
in particular with James, ActiveMQ, or its release)
There must be. All these little rules and policies and practices (written
or unwritten) seem like they could be some
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 10:17:46AM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> > Let's write a piece of software to do the auditing for us.
>
> How do you propose to do this? How do you propose to audit the code and
> know which pieces of code require which license and whether or not that
On 6/2/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I like the idea of automation.
What would be even more helpful would be a default Apache project
setup, with a maven release target that builds a release in the right
format.
If the project structure started out with LICENSE, NOTICE, JAR targ
Cliff has been doing so. Frankly, I suspect that many ASF projects need to
clean up their releases to conform with the currently solidifying ASF-wide
guidelines, but the Incubator PMC is more aware of them, and more diligent
in applying them.
From the perspective of being involved in one of
Agreed. Any tools that help incubating projects get off to the right
start we be a good start. Even if it's just a check list that has all
the things that have been found to be missing before in previous
attempted releases would be a great idea.
On 6/2/06, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
I like the idea of automation.
What would be even more helpful would be a default Apache project
setup, with a maven release target that builds a release in the right
format.
If the project structure started out with LICENSE, NOTICE, JAR targets
that put those in META-INF, places to put auxiliar
On Jun 2, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
(this is a rant and the beginnings of a proposal which has nothing
to do
in particular with James, ActiveMQ, or its release)
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 01:11:35PM +0100, James Strachan wrote:
In accordance with the incubator release procedure (see
Leo Simons wrote:
> People are doing stuff, trying to comply with all kinds of policies,
> and then instead of self-governing they have to go ask permission.
> When you need to ask for it, you're not self-governing.
Self-governance is a learned behavior, and one of the things that the
Incubator
13 matches
Mail list logo
