incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Incubator release task force
Date Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:11:10 GMT
>From a mobile device - forgive errors and terseness
On Jul 26, 2012 11:07 PM, "Joe Schaefer" <> wrote:
> >________________________________
> > From: Upayavira <>
> >To:
> >Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:37 PM
> >Subject: Re: Incubator release task force
> >
> >Marvin,
> >
> >While I (think I) can understand your concern (that it should be the
> >mentors who are reviewing releases, not yet another group), I'd suggest
> >that Jukka's approach might be a way to get there.
> Not for me- it is the podling's PPMC that needs to vet them properly,
> and we need to ensure that people who do a good job at that are suitably
> empowered to cast binding votes on release candidates.  I can see why
> podlings will be challenged for IPMC votes the first time thru, but
> by the third release they should have enough IPMC participation in their
> podling that the thought of coming to general@ and begging for votes
> won't ever occur to them.

+1 I can think of at least one case where we pushed a PPMC forward so he
could help other podlings. I've seen at least four releases benefit from
this move. We need to do it more, and I hope this task-force will start to
role that social structure into the docs (e.g. encourage successful release
managers to ask for IPMC membership).

> The reasons why we don't do this have nothing to do with the release
> or its documentation- it's just social norms colliding from different
> areas of the ASF.
> >
> >The incubator release process is, at the moment, pretty fraught, and I
> >suspect there are only a handful of people who really get it. I would
> It sucks for the same old tired rationale behind excluding competent
> peer reviewers from the halls of power here.  Some of us think this
> is a core failing of the IPMC, others disagree.  If Jukka can satisfy
> the anti-progressives and bring in more people willing to do a competent
> job of reviewing candidates simply because these people are trying to
> review other-podling candidates, more power to him.  Again I will say
> that this is slightly missing the point about *competent* review versus
> a casual glance at licensing issues that someone unskilled in a codebase
> might AT-BEST provide.
> >posit that one outcome of Jukka's suggestion is a simplified release
> >process, which is likely to be understandable to a larger number of
> >mentors, meaning you address your core issue.
> The release process *is* simple but laborious- it's supposed to be that
> But if you've done one successful release iterating on those learnings
> is considerably easier than trying to do it from scratch with just our
> bloated process docs.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message