incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <>
Subject Re: Incubator Releases: mandatory or optional? Purpose?
Date Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:35:58 GMT
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> > IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a
> "release".
>> > This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that.
>> Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT and
>> working through those issues. Might have been hard to see in this long
>> thread
> Ironically, when the Incubator first formed, podlings could NOT do a release
> and many yelled about it.  Accordingly, after much discussion on how, that
> rule was changed so that a podling *could* do a release.  Later, some people
> felt that it was not only possible, but should be mandatory to see a project
> go through the release process, and (in another irony), I believe that some
> of those asking to skirt the issue for Subversion were amonst those pushing
> to see the projects do a release before graduation.  Later on, there was a
> push from the Infrastructure team (as noted already by Joe), wanting to make
> sure that the podling knew the processes for doing a release on ASF
> infrastructure.

IMHO a podling should know how to cut an ASF release (IIRC i've always
been reasonably consistent on this). the easiest way to demonstrate
this knowledge is to cut a release but it's not the only way.

but releases are now too big a hurdle. i'd like to see a track
approach (with IPMC approval votes at each stage)  introduced to
increase the chances of a release passing first time and reduce the
need for an actual release to be cut. this would mean three smaller
hurdles (licensing audit, source audit and build audit) rather than
hitting all these issues when the first release is cut.

- robert

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message