Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJO+UbsnKO93WquZmRpZGECLZo=so5cfaG7ffSr0LsMMUS-0mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAS6=7hnu=g5jumv00YDRt4miFjMQgs0dng95W5weAr_vtT=rA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJ=gWAWd2mnJ0AoBkOs4Jew=73s4vBFs=yvXsXbPCXKGwQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7gvCj3fyorfC9m_CeTR7kX4d7rnj9i8P3evnKPY+wu1RQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJkSeD1Z=oOrUYZeEnoZ5g=Uy13-So8o7X0BSafgaLPvQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOGo0VaKgEb5WvEhNCce8C1n6p1Mtwns9PiMAEiA0R_pkxg_Ng@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7i+SO2XzkBxzpmHRF0Fb6ZVsB8SauNXVqncMhB1QDURSQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJO+Ubu-0+TGP9OD-nqdak5ewZ15TnK9siviy3YZjpX+DeRMCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7iVyxpT8Smup8jhxstND=j9AWjUjMb3bNw3bYM5HJ_V7Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJO+UbuyR+Ksz6CJi0wjAvVo+_rPgH7M6St3Fp7Dbzkxhv=r1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEWfVJmBWsd8jUZL3nZcbgzwkxqW3vAbiWWFBX0P7O9-hQ2K9w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJO+UbsnKO93WquZmRpZGECLZo=so5cfaG7ffSr0LsMMUS-0mA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:21:42 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAEWfVJk-PAoCOBuRO_MzG=V2=-Hsg-_e698w7DBX4zJvFmPfNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release Verification Checklist
From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>
To: Incubator General <general@incubator.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM, ant elder <ant.elder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> Define "lower bar". Do you see any of the review items
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release_manifest.txt as optional?
>>
> ...Probably all of those could be optional or fixed next time. I've done
> releases with invalid signatures in the past and there is some
> automated thing in the ASF distribution area that sends you an email
> about it and you just have to resign the artifact...

I have no problem with clear and documented decisions to relax some of
the release checklist criteria for an incubating release, as long as
that doesn't put the foundation at risk.

Failing tests clearly fall into this category, a reviewer can then
very much say "the tests are failing but I still give my +1 to the
release".

Dubious code provenance OTOH can potentially put the foundation at
risk, so I'd be much stricter on that.

With the suggested checklist this process, bargaining included,
becomes very clear and understandable for new podlings - they just
need to look at existing release manifests.

I like Marvin's description of
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html as an
"absurd monstrosity" and I think we're making progress with this new
checklist. The more content we can remove from the mess that's the
incubator.apache.org the better.

-Bertrand

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