cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Clelland <>
Subject Re: What should it mean to +1 a release
Date Fri, 25 Apr 2014 18:29:05 GMT
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Grieve <> wrote:

> Had some discussions about this at ApacheCon, and I think it would be
> good to formalize this in a release-process doc within coho/docs.
> The best Apache docs for it is:
> When we (or at least, members of the PMC), vote on a release, we
> (should) be saying that we are confident that:
> 1 - Our sources are properly licenses (aka, RAT or coho
> audit-license-headers)
> 2 - We have only compatibly licensed dependencies (and appropriate NOTICE
> lines)
> 3 - Code is made up of commits by individuals that have signed the
> ICLA (or that are trivial commits)
> 4 - Archives are properly signed & hashed
> 5 - Contents of archives match sha1 of what's in the repo
> Note that this list doesn't include anything about the *quality* of
> the code. This subject was more grey, and is more up to each project
> to figure out.
> - Some projects go as far as reviewing every commit that has occurred
> since the previous commit

I was thinking about this, in light of the recent plugins release, and I
think that it makes sense for quality concerns to be aired in the [DISCUSS]
thread that should be happen before the [VOTE] thread. That is a better
place for anyone to step up and say "I think there are quality problems
with component X; let's not release that just yet".

That saves the release manager a lot of time packaging up a release that's
going to be downvoted anyway, and then the [VOTE] thread can be more

This isn't saying, of course, that people *can't* downvote a release for
any reason whatsoever, including quality concerns, but I think it would
make surprises like that much less likely.


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