incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Incubator Releases: mandatory or optional? Purpose?
Date Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:32:59 GMT
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> IMHO a podling should know how to cut an ASF release
>> the easiest way to demonstrate this knowledge is to cut a release
>> but it's not the only way.
>
> I don't have an argument with any of those three points.
>
> I also suggest that there is a difference between preparing a release and
> actually doing a release.  In other words, one could prepare the proposed
> artifacts as if they were to be in a release, without releasing them.  That
> would allow audit of the key criteria.

this is effectively what they do now (at least for the first release)

in practice, this is too much for most podlings to get right first
time, and auditing on demand places too great a strain on the
available reviewing resources of the IPMC. so, it's slow and
difficult.

>> i'd like to see a track approach (with IPMC approval votes at each stage)
>>    [1] licensing audit
>>    [2] source audit
>>    [3] build audit
>> rather than hitting all these issues when the first release is cut.
>
> Please elaborate at your convenience.  And where do you feel that an audit
> of the release artifacts comes in?  Step 3?

the IPMC must review released artifacts to provide oversight but the
work required to approve each release could be reduce by only allowing
podlings who have demonstrated understanding to submit releases. this
could be done by using a track system containing the major checks made
at release time.

- robert

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


Mime
View raw message