cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrus Adamchik <and...@objectstyle.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release 3.0.1
Date Mon, 16 Aug 2010 17:12:14 GMT
Hi Mike,

There is a periodic discussion at various levels of Apache of how much  
procedure is mandatory. As an ASF member, my firm belief (I think  
shared by most in those discussions) is that release *packaging* is  
within the realm of PMC responsibilities, if all *legal* requirements  
are otherwise met (to me legal requirements are: no code without CLA  
coverage; NOTICE and LICENSE files complete; 3 +1 votes from PMC).

Case in point is recent iBatis meltdown. The community felt overly  
constrained by the Apache release rules (not the only, but one of the  
main gripes), so they decided to quit the ASF. When the Board and  
members heard of it, there was a collective disbelief ("What release  
rules? Ain't PMC the people who determine the rules?").

There are often well-intentioned attempts at various places (mainly  
incubator) to formalize this or that process with the goal to provide  
guidance to people, and those unfortunately end up appearing as  
"rules". But ultimately there is nobody but ourselves (the Cayenne  
PMC) to determine what goes in the tar.gz (with the exception of  
license related issues). With this in mind I'll be happy to fix the  
NOTICE file, but the source build file is a non-issue.

Not trying to dismiss your concerns (and very happy that you actually  
took the time to turn all the rocks looking at the distro), just  
giving my view of things. Also if you think it is worth following up,  
let's find some Foundation-wide avenue (infra? legal-discuss?) and  
move the discussion over there.

Cheers,
Andrus


On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Andrus Adamchik
> <andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>>> Does the code build:  cayenne-3.0.1.tar.gz -- I found no  
>>> instructions
>>> on building the code from the source package we distribute.  I don't
>>> see any build files either.
>>
>> No it doesn't, and it has never been the goal (ok, not since 1.0  
>> when we
>> provided Ant buildfile). It is practically impossible to do that as  
>> the
>> build system is ... well, complex. I am sure most non-C Apache  
>> projects
>> won't let you build from sources in the distro.
>
> My understanding is that we are required to release source packages  
> that build:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
> =========================================
> What Must Every ASF Release Contain?
>
> Every ASF release must contain a source package, which must be
> sufficient for a user to build and test the release provided they have
> access to the appropriate platform and tools. The source package must
> be cryptographically signed by the Release Manager with a detached
> signature; and that package together with its signature must be tested
> prior to voting +1 for release. Folks who vote +1 for release may
> offer their own cryptographic signature to be concatenated with the
> detached signature file (at the Release Manager's discretion) prior to
> release.
> =========================================
>
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if we haven't been doing this,
> then we are not releasing legitimate ASF releases.
>
> I know this is incredibly inconvenient and will probably require a
> great deal of work to fix, but if we're going to be an apache project,
> we have to follow the apache release rules.
>
> I have to vote -1.
>
> If I've somehow misinterpreted the release requirements, let me know.
>


Mime
View raw message