corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jan i <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] [PRE-VOTE] Release candidate 0.1
Date Fri, 14 Aug 2015 18:39:22 GMT
On 14 August 2015 at 20:25, Peter Kelly <> wrote:

> > On 15 Aug 2015, at 1:11 am, Dennis E. Hamilton <>
> wrote:
> >
> > With regard to what release votes are supposed to reflect, pre-voting
> makes absolutely no sense to me.  The ballots cast should follow a critical
> review of the *specific* release candidate.
> >
> > I have said all I need to say about this.
> Maybe voting is not the best term to use for this period. The way I
> understood it was a chance to hammer out last minute issues (like the line
> ending problem I just mentioned) and once the all the issues I’ve found
> have been sorted out, I give my +1.
> Keep in mind that release candidates differ slightly from other things we
> normally vote on, because there’s sometimes obvious technical problems
> (code not compiling, tests failing) that are not controversial, and are a
> matter of fixing and issuing a new release candidate.
> If you have a suggestion for a less ambiguous term we could use so that
> individuals can express the notion that all the problems they have
> found/care about have now been fixed, I would be happy for us to change to
> using that term instead. What is the typical practice on other ASF projects?
Most project I know of, actually call it [VOTE] and use the first part of
the period to find and remove problems. But for obvious reasons, I saw a
need to in our project to divide those 2 periods strongly, so nobody could
be in doubt about what was going on.

We could e.g. easily start [VOTE] and decide the vote runs until 72hours
after the last change, that way anybody who gave an early vote can change
it. However this kind of voting assumes a rather big flexibility among the
voters, but is in no way in conflict with the rules.

I tried to do it so that nobody could be in doubt. And if Dennis do not
understand what PRE-VOTE is, in comparison to [DISCUSS] and [VOTE] he
should just read PRE-VOTE == DISCUSS. I did not use DISCUSS because we had
that earlier when we decided what the content should be.

Hope that clarifies matters.
jan i.

jan i.

> —
> Dr Peter M. Kelly
> PGP key: <>
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

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