Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKoya93ozdBm1zQqdPQ954F24r5WrhfudjdR20WsWPf5-qaXQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKoya91HMP8ZFNqvn_FJHXoRW4bqrvHJMW_75rvo114aEoJdSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7juaugUx9EmSxT0QH-9h98SQoi2e-pusOeAzw5AhGVFBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKoya93ozdBm1zQqdPQ954F24r5WrhfudjdR20WsWPf5-qaXQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 12:23:14 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAAS6=7hBZVqZmEF9hJr_ueM9wfjLdiYjuBr+3ixJshg2OjmsUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
From: Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: bloodhound-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Joachim Dreimann
<joachim.dreimann@wandisco.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC member=
s
> if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?

Sorry, no.  The same rules regarding releases that apply to all Apache
projects also apply to the Incubator:

    http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release

    What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?

    Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approva=
l
    -- i.e., at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release=
,
    and there must be more positive than negative votes.

The PMC members in this case are members of the _Incubator_ PMC.  Without
three +1 IPMC votes, we don't have an ASF release.

> The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.

Indeed, it's been a week.

We now have two +1 IPMC votes, but we need a third.  Anybody available?

> We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
> already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.

That may be challenging.

It appears that two IPMC members are core Bloodhound devs: Branko =C4=8Cibe=
j and
Hyrum Wright, both of whom have voted on this release already.  Presumably,
they would stand ready to cast IPMC votes on a regular basis.

However, you only have one other Mentor (Greg), who is not a core dev.  Vot=
ing
on releases when you're not a core dev is hard -- whether you're a Mentor o=
r a
"freelance" IPMC member parachuting into a VOTE thread.  Putting out releas=
e
after release puts strain on that weak point.

What I might suggest in general is doing things to get the code base squeak=
y
clean and plainly so.

*   Make sure that the release passes RAT.
*   In fact, set up a buildbot to run RAT on a regular basis.
*   Get in the habit of documenting what actions you took to validate the
    release in your VOTE email.  (Checked sigs and sums, ran RAT, build and
    test on various platforms, verified that artifacts match version contro=
l
    tag, reviewed LICENSE and NOTICE, etc.)
*   Get in the habit of ferreting out ASF documentation and citing it durin=
g
    dev discussions.
*   Script your release process and integrate legal checks into it.

If you make sure that no IPMC member ever has to vote -1 on your release, y=
ou
won't use up precious VOTEs -- and you'll also prepare your project for
graduation and beyond.

Marvin Humphrey

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