incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <seb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 1.5.1 of NetBeans HTML/Java API
Date Sat, 18 Nov 2017 20:41:59 GMT
On 18 November 2017 at 18:28, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

That was basically the scenario I mentioned in my previous comment.

> 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).

My point is that the reviews are vital, and should not be dismissed as
a mere formality.
That route leads to complacency and potential errors (which is what
happened in the example I mentioned).

> -jt

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


Mime
View raw message