hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] HttpComponents Client 4.1-alpha2 release
Date Thu, 13 May 2010 16:50:21 GMT
On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:29 +0100, sebb wrote:
>  > On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
>  > > 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
>  >
>  > Source releases still require PMC votes.
>  >
>
>
> Sure, that is why there are source packages (zip and tarball).

The Maven release includes source, but is not identical to the above,
so we need to vote on that as well.

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

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


Mime
View raw message