Return-Path: 
 <general-return-13994-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 36167 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2007 07:55:58 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Apr 2007 07:55:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 77655 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2007 07:56:03 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 77474 invoked by uid 500); 6 Apr 2007 07:56:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:general-help@incubator.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
List-Id: <general.incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org
Received: (qmail 77463 invoked by uid 99); 6 Apr 2007 07:56:03 -0000
Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:56:03 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.229 as permitted sender)
Received: from [66.249.82.229] (HELO wx-out-0506.google.com) (66.249.82.229)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:55:55 -0700
Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i26so905274wxd
        for <general@incubator.apache.org>;
 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=BSUDgjg3HPo7RyMa0vUpZzoI8qy1ZyDtrrH1ypkgRIeB7plpvR7ozt8x04KsReydj9lXQvSPqjF/upsw9rH3zfjyLKx6jMz/yHFFyTCe68o8XeMla6IcW8xl6gsLIZJvggWHUozrG4rTha+/VDS5atvm6mbcStdrb9rYcLx2rVY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=gZXUe9Kyk32LqqSb+qrWn6Fnju/WqoTpZAn3VFK22mHo/ZhjT7+ud6EEclOGEdpqmqIWUwxq7Xh9Z5aGJlDPnehesyeOa73a5XtsyT3yO8jJKY5fhpBSgTiwYUsKPge6T+vlHMAZuTDWFeLbZx0xL/a0pwcDFOQa61jloAzBE3U=
Received: by 10.70.118.4 with SMTP id q4mr4947360wxc.1175846135012;
        Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.7.9 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 00:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f470f68e0704060055k2d48ef11k29f9985914978ca0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 08:55:34 +0100
From: "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: discussion of release of Apache Wicket 1.3.0-incubating-alpha
In-Reply-To: <9A1BA56C-9252-4E03-96B3-C32B2FDE4CD7@SUN.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <918312fe0703300245m4a9f1204ief37a214f477a0c8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c0312f5d0703310119m1a0c8d7en949da26b71239038@mail.gmail.com>
	 <200703311736.55860.niclas@hedhman.org>
	 <ceb609d80703311004r2309487av36964ef9ca29b99d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <f767f0600704040533h71fef926j950aa7da43c4ecd5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <918312fe0704040709i7bb9aafdu528978d0739a014a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4613DA2E.7070709@rowe-clan.net> <4613EBBA.4040803@gmx.de>
	 <f470f68e0704041354r16fa2061n59aec180461a347c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9A1BA56C-9252-4E03-96B3-C32B2FDE4CD7@SUN.com>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On 4/4/07, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:54 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:

<snip>

> > IMHO we need to alter the process so that we have an explicit audit
> > when the community feels (by vote) that it has a build process in
> > place. the code doesn't need to be ready but the build does and the
> > codebase needs to be ready for audit.
>
> IMHO the current process is fine but needs to be documented better.

i agree that we need better documentation but i'm really not getting
the cycles ATM. i'd hoped that other people would step up and push it
forward since this is vital work.

> Podlings should be encouraged to release stuff that they think is
> usable outside their small world of developers who check out from svn
> and build from source. The incubator is set up to review and approve
> releases without passing judgement on the usability, just the
> "legality".

i've been approaching this problem from the wrong perspective

most critical issues i encounter are issues with source. the source
can be checked at any time. potential issues with source should be
addressed as soon as possible. (and yes, i know henri arrived here
long before me.)

the best approach would be to run RAT on the trunks of all incubating
podlings. unfortunately this means finding the cycles to add the
required features to RAT and i'm likely to be very short of energy in
the next few months :-/

- robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org