incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5.1 of NetBeans HTML/Java API
Date Sat, 18 Nov 2017 18:28:33 GMT
2017-11-17 22:59 GMT+01:00 sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>:

> On 17 November 2017 at 21:13, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 17. 11. 2017 v 12:48, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com>:
> >
> >>> On 16 November 2017 at 22:19, Jaroslav Tulach <
> jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 72h is gone and (I think) we still need one more vote. C'mon it's a
> formality (version 1.5.1 is better than 1.5 and 1.5 was approved). Somebody
> please help us move on.
> >>
> >> Sorry to interrupt, but release approval is never a formality.
> >
> > As expected... I knew my comment would provoke a reaction. Too bad it
> didn't provoke a binding vote...
> >
> >> Each release must be separately approved.
> >> Things can go wrong when assembling the release artifacts.
> >> For example files can be omitted or spurious files can be included
> >> (did the RM use a clean workspace?)
> >
> > The release is prepared by a Jenkins job
> > https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/
> incubator-netbeans-html4j-release/
> > The reason is simple - I don't trust myself to not make some stupid
> mistake and thus I automate as much as I can. Thanks to that I can remain
> convinced release 1.5.1 is better than previous version 1.5 and none of
> them contain any spurious files.
>
> Whilst automation helps to reduce errors, it cannot guarantee to eliminate
> them.
>

Right. That is the reason why there are the human reviews.


> Can you prove that there are no bugs in the release script?
> Or any of the libraries that it depends on?
>

I am not trying to, but: Can you tell me what is the probability that 3rd
human reviewer will find an error when:

- the script is the same as in previous version
- the previous version was found OK by all human reviewers and approved
- the new version has already been successfully reviewed by two reviewers

I put my bet on the probability being extremely low and called the
remaining review a formality. Looks like I was the lucky winner (this time).
-jt

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