incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thilo Goetz <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1 (incubating) RC2
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:53:57 GMT
On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko ─îibej wrote:
> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote:
>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin.
> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release.
> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you
> justify this new requirement?

Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you
are now.  Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer
organization.  The backs and forths you are seeing here are
normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like
this.  This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are
either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller
organizations where it was easier to come to a decision.  Try
to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part
of the wider Apache community (not just your project).  Help
improve things where you see they are lacking.  This community
aspect is very important at Apache.

As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement.  The
issue just wasn't spotted last time.  Yes, that's annoying, but
it can't be helped.  The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the
most important files in your distribution, and you should make
every effort to get them right.  Sebb raises valid concerns that
need to be addressed.

Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-)

BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job.  I was not optimistic
when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where
you are now.  Keep up the good work.


> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and
> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue
> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release.
> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases.
> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not
> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the
> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security
> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release
> vote.
> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use
> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases.
> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst
> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release
> artefacts has not.)
> -- Brane
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message