cayenne-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 3.0.1 - next steps
Date Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:55:40 GMT
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 2:13 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@maniatis.org>wrote:

> On 28/08/10 2:18 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Aristedes Maniatis<ari@maniatis.org>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> As a PMC I suggest that our rules should be:
>>>
>>> 1. Every release must include both the source and binaries built for
>>> supported platforms. They can be packaged separately but must be made
>>> available from the same download page.
>>>
>>
>> Rule:  must include a source package
>> Guideline:  would be nice to also have binaries
>>
>
> I'm not talking about Apache Foundation rules here, I'm talking about the
> rules we as a PMC want to create for ourselves. We need to encompass the
> requirements of the Foundation, but we need to do it in relation to how we
> operate and what outcomes we want.
>
> In our case, we want to release binaries every time, and I personally will
> be voting against any release which does not contain binaries. Let me know
> if you disagree, but I'm putting that down as a 'rule'.
>

I disagree.   A release will be whatever a release requires.   Extreme
example.  At some point, we might have a security issue with Cayenne, and we
might decide that we want to make an immediate release of a single source
file, with no binaries.    Most of the time our releases will probably
contain binaries, but if someone decided to make a milestone release of only
source code, I see no reason why we'd disallow it.



>  2. Although not an Apache requirement to do so, we will package all
>>> essential runtime dependencies within our binary distribution packages,
>>> but
>>> not within the source package. Optional dependencies will not be included
>>> in
>>> the distribution.
>>>
>>
>> I see value in providing a package containing essential runtime
>> dependencies.
>> However, I don't see it as a requirement.   I suspect that due to the
>> size of the dependencies and the prevalence of maven, most people
>> would prefer that the binary package not contain the dependencies.
>> Might be wrong about this, though.
>>
>
> Some of our dependencies are a little obscure, so perhaps it is a good idea
> to bundle them unless we are confident they are in a repo somewhere
> reliable. I've seen that Andrus is working on improving this already.
>
> Obviously there is a line to draw. We can never release source which has
> *everything* you need to build the binaries since we aren't bundling the
> JDK.
>

I am in favor of doing this.   But it needs more discussion.   I still think
rule/requirement is too strong of a word, though.   General
practice/guideline if we come to agreement on it.



>   b. satisfy themselves that the source matches the appropriate svn tag (I
>>> don't know how to do that though: how do I check that Andrus didn't
>>> accidentally build the distribution without a clean svn checkout or that
>>> his
>>> git-svn tool didn't do something wacky?)
>>>
>>
>> No -- why does it matter where the source came from for the purposes
>> of a release?
>>
>
> Because you yourself said:
>
>  In practice, I think the primary bulk of the rest of the source
>> licensing checks happen during the the commit process as a "best
>> effort" rather than "guaranteed perfection".
>>
>
> Personally I'm confident that the code in SVN is appropriately licensed
> since I read pretty much every commit that goes past. But I've been
> chastised twice now about my voting methodology. I've previously taken it
> for granted that the source in SVN is what ends up in the release and
> therefore until now I've done little independent checking of the packaged
> source. I've focussed on ensuring the binaries are sane. Mike, as you say,
> more emphasis should be given to verifying the source, but I'm trying to
> understand what that means in reality.
>
>   c. satisfy themselves that the licensing requirements are met (this will
>>> usually be achieved by [b] since all committers have a CLA, and ensuring
>>> that all notices are in place)
>>>
>>
>> Yes.  Rule.
>>
>


>   d. satisfy themselves that the binary distribution is sane and passes
>>> basic
>>> usability tests. For example, that the Cayenne modeler runs and the main
>>> jar
>>> passes some basic tests.
>>>
>>
>> Not a rule, but a good idea.   Not legally required for a release.
>>
>
> Again, I'm trying to create some rules for ourselves as PMC members against
> your (correct) statement that new PMC members don't always know what is
> expected of them. Having a checklist for releases seems like a starting
> point.
>

These sounds fine as an item or items on our checklist.   It might even be
reasonable as a requirement rather than a guideline.



>  Again, the goal of our releases is to provide quality software, but
>> the only legal requirements of a release are that it meet certain
>> legal and procedural criteria, not that it's quality software.
>>
>
> As PMC members we have a responsibility to do both regardless of the
> Foundation rules.
>

I don't want to nitpick, but that's not accurate.   As project members we
have a desire to produce quality software.   As PMC members we have a
responsibility to meet certain legal and procedural criteria.   There are
two different roles (what some people call "hats") involved here.   In our
PMC role, our responsibility is to meet the requirements of ASF releases.
But I agree that we also have a strong desire to do more than just release
legally-satisfying packages.   But if I consider two people on the extreme
edges -- one who only cares if the software works and one who only cares if
the software meets the legal requirements of the ASF -- the second one is
the only one qualified to be a PMC member.

In summary:
Meeting the legal/procedural requirements of the ASF is a PMC member
requirement.   If somone is not willing to do this, they should step down.
There is sometimes room for interpretation on how to determine if we're
meeting the legal requirements (ie, [monitor all commits and verify that the
svn tag matches the source download] VERSUS [run RAT tools] VERSUS [spot
check the code]), but it has to be done.   Other times there is no room for
interpretation -- the signatures have to be checked, the source has to be
provided.

And unfortunately, I'm no expert.   I've been around a long time and have
seen how many other ASF projects operate, and I read through what
documentation is available, but in the end, I'm not even an Apache member.
I no longer follow infrastructure, legal-discuss, nor the incubator general
mailing list.   I did sign up for the new release management mailing list a
couple weeks back.   Maybe that's a place we could be asking some of these
questions on topics that are more open for interpretation, but because of
the nature of the ASF, if it's not documented somewhere, it's up for debate,
and often the debate takes several years to work out.   The mailing thread
that we've referred to eventually lead to documentation changes, but it
didn't happen right away.

I do have the advantage that I'm a PMC member on the MyFaces project, and
just because of the shear number of subprojects, people involved there, and
the variety of issues there (3rd party add-ons/modules/app-servers with all
kinds of licenses, Java Community Process, NDAs, security issues, maven,
ant, J2EE integration, GSoC), I get to eavesdrop on a lot of
How-It-Works-At-ASF discussions involving people from a bunch of other ASF
projects.

And sometimes when I see something relevant from there pop up, I try to
share over here at Cayenne, where we seem to be a bit more isolated from the
rest of the ASF.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message