corinthia-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriela Gibson <>
Subject Re: Do we have/want a check list for releases?
Date Mon, 24 Aug 2015 02:57:00 GMT
Thanks for the hint Dave, here are the links:

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.


On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Dave Fisher <> 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 <> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti <> 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:

Visit my Coding Diary:

View raw message