cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Is 2.7.0 released?
Date Thu, 02 May 2013 02:50:44 GMT
To be clear - I didn't actually have anything outstanding for 2.7. But, if
I had - I wouldn't have been a bit thrown off by not knowing the release
going out.

Lazy consensus would have been fine. But we didn't do that. My
understanding of lazy consensus would mean sending an email out saying "I
intend to release 2.7 unless anyone has objections. Will wait 24 hours
before doing so.".

http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus

Upwards and onwards! But let's stick to the documented release practices
next time, or change them to match what we do.



On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Simon MacDonald
<simon.macdonald@gmail.com>wrote:

> Yeah, I offered to do some extra testing once I got free but it was too
> late.
>
> Simon Mac Donald
> http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Lorin Beer <lorin.beer.dev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I think Andrew had some valid concerns about the quality of the release,
> > and delaying the release until later in the week to make sure it was as
> > solid as possible for the month of conferences.
> > These concerns we're kind of ignored in the process of our 'lazy release'
> > process.
> >
> > That having been said, a vote process would not be a step in the right
> > direction, we just need to pay attention to the conversations happening
> > around the release.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> >> ugh, ya, that sort of thing leads to design by committee and voting
> >> blocks. lets not.
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> >> > +1 lazy consensus. Cordova has a consistent release schedule so
> voting on
> >> > something that is predictable seems overkill.
> >> >
> >> > If you feel you'd like to change the release process to include an
> >> > official vote, Andrew, then we should start a vote on the private
> list,
> >> > I.e. Vote-to-change-the-process kind of vote.
> >> >
> >> > On 5/1/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Ultimately its up to us how we want to run with it. Far prefer lazy
> >> >>consensus to voting.
> >> >>
> >> >>On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> >>wrote:
> >> >>> Even in the pre-updated release steps, it explicitly says we need
a
> >> vote
> >> >>> and refers to this "apache way" doc:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> We decided on voting for each release? I thought it was lazy
> consensus
> >> >>>>(as
> >> >>>> with all decisions we make)?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 5/1/13 1:17 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org>
wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> >I'm not sure I saw the vote thread, nor an announcement
release,
> but
> >> >>>> >issues
> >> >>>> >are being closed that indicate that it has happened.
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >I appreciate everyone's effort in getting it out, but the
vote is
> a
> >> >>>>super
> >> >>>> >important step because it's our last chance to say "is
everyone
> >> >>>> >comfortable
> >> >>>> >with this release".
> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> >I'd like to say that it was clearly documented on the release
wiki
> >> >>>>page
> >> >>>> >(which it is)... but the wiki's been down for two days
:P.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >
> >>
>

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