From general-return-11499-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Fri Oct 13 19:17:06 2006 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 83740 invoked from network); 13 Oct 2006 19:17:03 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Oct 2006 19:17:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 96898 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2006 19:16:57 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96834 invoked by uid 500); 13 Oct 2006 19:16:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 96823 invoked by uid 99); 13 Oct 2006 19:16:57 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:16:57 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mail@leosimons.com designates 216.218.185.16 as permitted sender) Received: from [216.218.185.16] (HELO bali.sjc.webweaving.org) (216.218.185.16) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:16:56 -0700 Received: from [172.27.173.74] ([66.194.95.2]) (authenticated bits=0) by bali.sjc.webweaving.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k9DJGUOR092251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:16:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mail@leosimons.com) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <02DE7779-ADC8-4D62-B30D-DB81C5C3842D@leosimons.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Leo Simons Subject: Re: Release Requirements Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:16:03 +0200 To: general@incubator.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on bali.sjc.webweaving.org X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Old-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Oct 12, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the > packaging, > there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference > should not be a release criteria for the Incubator? ASF release processes work because people can vote however they want. I don't want to create a *rule* that says people that vote can't vote in some way for some reason. > The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices. > When the > Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we ought to > focus on > actual requirements, such as: > > Licensing > Notification > Signing (if we choose to enforce this) > ... The infrastructure team (see mirroring documents) requires release signing. It's an ASF-wide thing. > And what those actual requirements are should be documented so that > the > projects aren't surprised when submitting their request. If we > decide to > add requirements, we should agree to add them to the release > requirements > document. > > Agreed? Yes, I like having good documentation to refer to ("-1, go RTFM on releases"). As long as the above "should"s remain "should"s in the RFC sense (eg not "must"s) I agree. LSD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org