Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 86021 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2006 23:04:21 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2006 23:04:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 6310 invoked by uid 500); 19 Oct 2006 23:04:18 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 6166 invoked by uid 500); 19 Oct 2006 23:04:18 -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 6155 invoked by uid 99); 19 Oct 2006 23:04:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:04:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [66.112.202.2] (HELO mail.devtech.com) (66.112.202.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:04:17 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.devtech.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.0rc3) with SMTP ID 878 for ; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:03:56 -0400 (EDT) From: "Noel J. Bergman" To: Subject: RE: Checkpoint on Harmony (Re: [discussion] Harmony podling to ask for vote for graduation) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:03:52 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 In-Reply-To: <4537CC91.4060306@apache.org> X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sam Ruby wrote: > Of course, one could simply manufacture a synthetic release for the=20 > purposes of satisfying a perceived incubation requirement, but = honestly,=20 > that seems more like one of the "ticky-marks driven processes" I tend = to=20 > see within my day job than anything I would expect to see at the ASF. +1 In MOST cases, as Robert says, going through even a pro-forma release is = useful. And Robert did find some problems using RAT. *BUT* I'll bet = that he would find that many projects have similar issues --- and we = probably should promote RAT as something for ALL ASF projects to use to = help evaluate their releases. Make testing with RAT something, as we = have just started to see a few do, that the people preparing releases = use proactively to check what they are doing. > I am growing increasingly concerned with is that we (collectively) > have started to lose sight on what the mission of the incubator is. > Yes, not having a release is an indicator, but there certainly are > other indicators. No, I'm not advocating that we "rush" projects > out of the incubator. Harmony may be an exception to the claimed rule, but that's why I = repeatedly advocate that we should focus on human judgment not on rules. = Most of us would agree that Harmony is ready for graduation. As Roy = put it, he'd have voted +1 to release if Geir had simply posted the = draft resolution and called for a vote. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org