cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] release 3.0.1
Date Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:28:43 GMT
It's one thing to state that it may not be a requirement to provide
buildable source, but it's quite a stretch to claim that we do provide
buildable source immediately after a message stating "It is
practically impossible to do that as the build system is ... well,
complex"  Taken to extremes, you could say that a jar file full of
classes is buildable source, since, with the right tools, you can
decompile the class files back to java code.

But if you want to say that we're meeting the source build
requirement, consider this. It would mean that everyone voting +1 on a
release has somehow thrown a home-grown build-system on top of the
source release and successfully built it.   Because that's the only
way an evaluator can be sure that the release has met the condition
and the release manager hasn't accidentally left out some required
piece of source.   We wouldn't say that we know that the release has a
valid checksum without checking it ourselves or that the release has a
valid signature without checking it ourselves.   Same goes for
building it.


On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a working
> pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the binaries. In this
> respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but a Java
> developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by writing
> build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
>
> Andrus
>
>



On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org> wrote:
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Actually, re-reading the above and it doesn't state a need of a working
> pom.xml or build.xml, just the source that is matching the binaries. In this
> respect we don't violate this. We do not provide a buildfile, but a Java
> developer will be able to build the source regardless (e.g. by writing
> build.xml himself, or importing sources in Eclipse).
>
> Andrus
>
>

Mime
View raw message