felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Offermans <marcel.offerm...@luminis.nl>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release bundle repository 2.0.4, configadmin 1.8.2, file install 3.5.0, gogo-runtime 0.16.0, utils 1.8.0
Date Wed, 11 Mar 2015 09:22:00 GMT
Hello Guillaume,
On 11 Mar 2015 at 10:11:01, Guillaume Nodet (gnodet@apache.org) wrote:

2015-03-11 9:51 GMT+01:00 Marcel Offermans <marcel.offermans@luminis.nl>: 

> Guillaume, all, I am a bit confused here. 
> First of all, I doubt that you are allowed to “modify” a vote that is 
> ongoing. People voted on a set of artifacts, if you modify that set, you 
> need to start a new vote. Also, the subject and this message still refers 
> to the gogo-runtime 0.16.0, so you did not even completely remove that from 
> this vote, causing more confusion. 

The other artifacts have not changed at all, so while the set of artifacts 
to release is changed, the artifacts have not. I don't see why the vote 
for artifacts that have not been removed or changed would become invalid. 

That would be the case if the artifacts were not really independent, but in 
this case, I could have started several votes and the result would have 
been the same (with I agree, less confusion). 
Formally, I don’t think it matters. If you group source code in a single vote, you simply
cannot remove parts of it from the vote and continue. Of course I understand these are different
bundles, but that, at least in my opinion, does not matter. I also don’t see anything documenting
such a procedure in our or Apache’s general release guide. That is why I am asking for clarification
and opinions of others about this.

> I would be in favor of a completely new vote on these artifacts, but I’m 
> happy to hear what others think about this. 

I've sent an email with the result of the vote already and they have been 
I suppose that you either missed that, or you're talking about a future 
I did see that, but I don’t think the procedure was correct, or at least I would like some
other PMC members or committers to comment on this. So we can either change our release guide
to specifically allow this, or agree that we don’t in which case we can discuss what to
do, if anything, with artifacts that we accidentally released.

I think the confusion comes from me launching a single vote for multiple 
independent artifacts. We could avoid that in the future if that causes 
too much confusion. 
I agree that’s where the confusion starts. We have no such concept in our procedures that
defines “independent artifacts” so whatever you decide to group, that is what you vote
on and that vote either passes, or it does not. It’s a trade-off you have to decide on when
preparing the release. The more you group, the less work you have, but the higher the chance
that something is wrong and you have to redo everything again.

Greetings, Marcel

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