geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:38:57 GMT

On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:

>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> It was something Roy said recently on Incubator general that  
> enlightened.
>
> On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> FYI, traditionally, all release votes are for the source code  
>> package and
>> only that package.  Once the source code version is set in stone,  
>> binaries
>> and assorted other release artifacts can be generated by individual
>> committers without a vote if the group trusts them to do so and they
>> have a signed key.  Some groups might require a vote on binaries  
>> as well,
>> but the ASF only requires a vote on the source.
>
> I like voting on binaries for most our stuff as our build is  
> massively complex.  But in this case I figured I'd give the "do you  
> trust me to build/publish" angle a try as these are tiny little  
> jars that aren't complicated and it's way easier to just run the  
> maven publish command on them after the vote than it is to create a  
> "staging" build for each one and figuring out a non-trivial way to  
> publish them later.
>
> -David
>
>
Thanks...this was the missing context for me.  I spect I'm not the  
only one who doesn't hang on the incubator thread so this helps.

I'm confused about Roy's comments as there are specific requirements  
for including legal stuff in the binaries.  Sounds like he is  
advocating everyone building their own copy and validating it.

Since this is a change in process it would be good to outline how you  
propose it working for the benefit of the many on the list that don't  
have the benefit of your thinking apart from the reference above.

I would very much like to see us change the process and the specs are  
probably a really good place to start.  I'm +1 for changing the  
process.  I would very much like to get the new process documented so  
that you don't end up becoming the release dog and have everyone  
making up a new way each time which is currently where we are at.

Other people's thoughts?

Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org



Mime
View raw message