incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][VOTE] Release Apache OpenOffice 3.4 (incubating) RC1
Date Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:47:34 GMT
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> OK, I have a question on this one. MUST we download and build or can we vote
>>> on an already built (binary) version? There was some discussion about this,
>>> and, yes, there are notes about this on general information for Apache
>>> releases, but...I jsut noticed the vote from Hagar Delest which implies he
>>> used a binary so this is why I ask.
>>>
>>
>> You are not required to build the AOO RC in order to vote.   Remember,
>> participating in the review and approval of releases is one of the
>> most basic responsibilities of *all* PMC members.   We have selected
>> PMC members with a wide range of relevant skills, not all of them are
>> coders.  So not everyone is expected to build.  But I would expect
>> that everyone who votes will find something that they can do to help
>> verify the RC.   For example, installing, verifying a translation,
>> reviewing the LICENSE and NOTICE file, reviewing the RAT scan output,
>> etc.
>>
>> Remember, unlike a much smaller project at Apache, we cannot assume
>> that there is even a single person who understands all aspects of the
>> product.  Not even one.  Those who can build on Windows might not be
>> the same ones who can verify the Gallacian translation, and those who
>> understand the details of the LICENSE requirements might not have
>> access to a 64-bit Linux machine to test that install.  So we need to
>> rely on others.
>>
>> So, a +1 to me means three things:
>>
>> 1) I have verified what I can verify and it looks acceptable for a release.
>>
>> 2) No one else has reported a credible, substantial issue with the RC.
>>
>> 3) I believe that there has been sufficient overall review of the RC.
>>
>> So obviously my vote can change based on what others find and report
>> about the RC.  In particular I plan to test a few install scenarios
>> and if they work out, I'll vote +1 later today.  But if someone later
>> finds a serious issue, then I could change my vote.
>
> There are two types of artifacts in the release candidate.
>

I disagree with your interpretation.

> (A) The source release. This is the official package and what the VOTE is ultimately
about.
>

Every release must include a source distribution, but that does not
mean that the vote is not also about the binary packages.   Remember,
all of the other requirements of Apache releases also pertain to the
binary distributions, including NOTICE, LICENSE, detached signature,
hashes, etc.  These are all factors in the vote, therefor the vote
does concern the binary packages as well.

As you know there is no other mechanism for a project to release a
binary except through a vote.

It should be obvious that the source code is not intended to be read
as a literary work.  Its primary value is its ability to be compiled
into a binary and used as-is, or modified and and compiled into
derived product.  So the functionality and quality of our binary
distribution is of great importance to this project.


> (B) Built installation binaries. These are for user's convenience and are not "official".
This includes the SDK.
>

The binaries are official.  They are part of the release.  They are
voted on.  They are signed.  They will be uploaded and served up by
Apache-endorsed mirrors. The use the Apache-owned trademarks.  I don't
see how you can say they are anything other than official.

Each Apache project must produce a source distribution in its release.
  Some will have binary packages as well.  Some will not.  The
relative priority to give to the binary packages is something each PMC
will decide for itself.  This is fine, so long as the source packages
are provided as well. In an end-user facing project it is natural for
the project put some emphasis on the binary packages.

I think we're all aware of the importance of the source releases.
Please don't lecture us on that.  After all we have spent months
working on getting the source into good shape for Apache.  We get
that. But also please don't insult us, and all the volunteer effort
spent on this project, by saying the binary portions of the release
are not official or are not important.

-Rob

Mime
View raw message