From general-return-23916-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Fri Nov 13 18:36:29 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 97372 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2009 18:36:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Nov 2009 18:36:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 58755 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2009 18:36:27 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 58548 invoked by uid 500); 13 Nov 2009 18:36:26 -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 58538 invoked by uid 99); 13 Nov 2009 18:36:26 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:36:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.214 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.220.214] (HELO mail-fx0-f214.google.com) (209.85.220.214) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:36:18 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2587998fxm.20 for ; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:35:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dN8hAeqytl4P5hT4+L5NxlRPdYGwPRknK90uazXahNg=; b=tz7lFkC+XyVW0PPyguh9RMJkZZDF0asd1Hn2/hkyieOnbx6pz5bHhyfNR8h2OMDkCq npkCDCEo8hOSSUVY+eHwWjdGmqwKHmya7+UYy3R5Ol8NEPfPwTeyLj5vCmJ//EkHoDJj ZKT5s423dI2yBxsXBvPL5CSt2Kzeu0SbdJxW4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=MFrr30sDbBeUpQLkZwlrdS86Saaryce0KOjLSctPzWQs96XeydO8a5qA6L9KBwk8tA i7p0eVbnbmedPyxMMvEk8bYavbN6YnPEjV6lOwnf75E87j3+3NrFnSmDjltD2445khrg tPWpmld5Ccs3Y8jJyvwR8tF82q1kF9dDzAQgk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.48.212 with SMTP id s20mr1572535bkf.101.1258137358451; Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:35:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <6cca3db30911100940u4aec04a1h396cf1ac86a8b24c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:35:58 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Incubator Releases: mandatory or optional? Purpose? From: Robert Burrell Donkin To: general@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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 rele= ase > and many yelled about it. =A0Accordingly, after much discussion on how, t= hat > rule was changed so that a podling *could* do a release. =A0Later, some p= eople > felt that it was not only possible, but should be mandatory to see a proj= ect > go through the release process, and (in another irony), I believe that so= me > of those asking to skirt the issue for Subversion were amonst those pushi= ng > to see the projects do a release before graduation. =A0Later on, there wa= s a > push from the Infrastructure team (as noted already by Joe), wanting to m= ake > 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: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org