hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HttpComponents Client 4.1-alpha2 release
Date Thu, 13 May 2010 16:21:17 GMT
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 16:49 +0100, sebb wrote:
> On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 15:51 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >  > On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> >  > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 10:41 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >  > >  > On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> >  > >  > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:12 +0100, sebb wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > On 12/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
wrote:
> >  > >  > >  > > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents
Client
> >  > >  > >  > >  4.1-alpha2. The vote is open for the next 72 hours,
and only votes from
> >  > >  > >  > >  HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote
passes if at least
> >  > >  > >  > >  three binding +1 votes are cast and there are
more +1 than -1 votes.
> >  > >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > >  Packages:
> >  > >  > >  > >  http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpclient-4.1-alpha2/
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > Please can you upload the Maven packages as well, so
we can vote on those too?
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  > Should be largely a formality if the main packages are
OK, but they do
> >  > >  > >  > need to be voted on.
> >  > >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > > Sebastian, we have been through that, haven't we? Only source
package
> >  > >  > >  represents an official release artifact that needs to be
voted on.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > The Maven artifacts always include source files, either as source
jars
> >  > >  > (which should be provided), if not then at least pom.xml will be
> >  > >  > included.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > >  Binary artifacts are merely byproducts. If you want to verify
they are
> >  > >  > >  ok, you should build them from source.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > That's not strictly true either - binary artifacts need to be
> >  > >  > inspected to ensure that the appropriate N&L files are present.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > Please see
> >  > >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-34
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > Which was never really resolved and anyway does not cover the point
> >  > about N&L at all.
> >  >
> >
> >
> > Precisely. Hen's statement boils down to a simple fact that there is no
> >  ASF wide policy on the matter and it is up to individual projects unless
> >  the Board rules otherwise.
> >
> >
> >  > >
> >  > >  > >  My main problem is not with uploading a bunch of files, but
the fact you
> >  > >  > >  are changing an established release process in the middle
of a release
> >  > >  > >  without prior discussion and a consent from other committers.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >  > My point is that the process is IMO not following the ASF standard,
> >  > >  > and therefore needs to be fixed.
> >  > >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > There is no ASF standard. It is up to individual projects. Please see
> >  > >  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-34
> >  >
> >  > Not really relevant as source releases must be approved by the PMC.
> >  > The Maven artefacts include source, and therefore must be voted on.
> >  >
> >
> >
> > Is there an official statement to that effect by the Board I could have
> >  a look at?
> >
> 
> No idea.
> 
> But I hope it's agreed that source releases must be voted on by the PMC.
> Maven includes source, and is a release.
> 
> >
> >  > Regardless of the JIRA issue, I think the consumers of ASF releases
> >  > have a right to expect that the archives etc have been formally
> >  > approved as part of the "quality control" applied by the ASF
> >  > organisation.
> >  >
> >  > Why not just publish the Maven artefacts so we can include them in the vote?
> >  >
> >
> >
> > How exactly do you suggest that I do that, as the artifacts are
> >  generated by Maven from source at deployment time?
> 
> This is actually quite easy, see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSSITE-55
> 
> >  Besides, the release process is already is painful enough. I see no good
> >  reason for making it even more painful due to some completely arbitrary
> >  requirement.
> 
> It's not arbitrary.
> 

I am sorry, Sebastian, but per comment from legal unless the Board makes
a clear statement, it is just arbitrary

Oleg


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@hc.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@hc.apache.org


Mime
View raw message