corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Do we have/want a check list for releases?
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 17:35:51 GMT
+1000

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:31 AM, jan i <jani@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi
> 
> I have added text to the wiki page, while I still have it fresh in mind. A
> couple of comments (before somebody start
> tossing procedures):
> - I added a link to the official release guide (thanks to Andrea)
> - The 18 steps reflect what I just did + the changes suggested by IPMC
> 
> Disclaimer, this is our version of release management, it follows the
> rules, but e.g. the PRE-VOTE is a extra
> step, which Peter suggested and that turned out to be very useful.
> 
> Feel free to correct the text, but please do not reduce it to "what the
> rulebook says", that will not help us.
> 
> rgds
> jan i.
> 
> 
> On 24 August 2015 at 06:40, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> wrote:
> 
>> A nice collection.  I don't know of anything better.
>> 
>> If you want to see how it goes for other projects, especially podlings,
>> subscribe to general@incubator.apache.org and there will be plenty of
>> discussion.
>> 
>> - Dennis
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gabriela Gibson [mailto:gabriela.gibson@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 19:57
>> To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Do we have/want a check list for releases?
>> 
>> Thanks for the hint Dave, here are the links:
>> 
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>> 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
>> 
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html
>> 
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SigningReleases
>> 
>> there are probably more, but I think this is a good start.
>> 
>> I would suggest that everyone has a little bit of a read over the next
>> two weeks and that we then combine ideas into a 'how to' for the next
>> release and refine that as we gain more experience.
>> 
>> G
>> 
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Here are two ideas that other projects do.
>>> 
>>> (1) Have a target in the build or a script that creates all the release
>> artifacts.
>>> 
>>> (2) include Apache RAT to run license checks  as part of the build.
>>> 
>>> Look at the emails at the emails from IPMC members on what was done as
>> part of the vote.
>>> 
>>> Corinthia will certainly have our own unique differences based what
>> artifacts we decide to create.
>>> 
>>> I think there are probably three check lists.
>>> 
>>> (1) Release Packaging - what is being released.
>>> 
>>> (2) Release Manager - how to build, vote and distribute. POI has almost
>> all of this as Ant targets. This can make it easy to for anyone to be RM
>>> 
>>> (3) Voter - how to check IP from both the ASF requirements and also the
>> project's. We can choose our own standards for quality. The ASF is not
>> concerned if the code works, but the project community does care.
>>> 
>>> The incubator has wikis with policies and draft policies I would provide
>> the links but I am away from my computer. Perhaps Dennis can provide the
>> links.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 23, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Gabriela Gibson <
>> gabriela.gibson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pescetti@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> <snipped some complex procedural discussion>
>>>> 
>>>>> It is not mandatory, but very useful (and I would
>>>>> make a recommendation out of it) that when voting on a release one
>> doesn't
>>>>> simply cast a +1 as such.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I mean, of course a -1 must always be explained, but a +1 should be
>>>>> explained too, like this:
>>>>> "+1 Built source on Windows, checked README files, checked ALv2
>> headers"
>>>>> "+1 Did only a cursory review but I trust you guys on the code"
>>>>> and so on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Remember, the PPMC is assumed (whether this is written somewhere or
>> not) to
>>>>> give a +1 based on (mainly) technical reasons; the IPMC will take this
>> for
>>>>> granted and (broadly speaking) mainly look for compliance issues. If
>> from
>>>>> the set of PPMC votes the Release Manager can understand, for example,
>> that
>>>>> no testing at all was done on Linux, he may decide to extend the VOTE
>> until
>>>>> Linux gets proper coverage; if the PPMC members do not supply this
>>>>> information, we can't know what was tested and what not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, Jan's question was not for me, but in terms of the "proper
>> technical
>>>>> review" it would help to see VOTE e-mails more informative than a
>> simple +1,
>>>>> so that one can be sure that all areas are covered.
>>>>> 
>>>>> [Feel free to quote/forward this message in public]
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Andrea.
>>>> 
>>>> This makes me think that perhaps having an official check list to
>>>> ensure that nothing gets forgotten and to make the splitting of the
>>>> large task that a release is easy and focus resources more efficiently
>>>> may be a very useful tool to have.
>>>> 
>>>> What do other projects do in this regard?
>>>> 
>>>> G
>>>> --
>>>> Visit my Coding Diary: http://gabriela-gibson.blogspot.com/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Visit my Coding Diary: http://gabriela-gibson.blogspot.com/
>> 
>> 

Mime
View raw message