lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doug Cutting <cutt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Lucene 2.2 soon?
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:39:08 GMT
Chris Hostetter wrote:
> : yet incorporate voting.  In the past, we've not always voted on release
> : artifacts, but that's Apache policy.  A release should not be made
> : unless its binary file has at least 3 +1 votes from PMC members.  I
> 
> Is that really a hard and fast policy?  My reading of the voting policy
> docs is that only "Votes on Code Modification" have a strict "PMC
> members have the only binding votes" while other types of votes allow the
> definiton of 'binding' to be "community-specific" ... i was under the
> impression that in the past the lucene community has treated all committer
> votes for releases as binding.
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

I think that page is unfortunately ambiguous on this point.  But, from 
discussions I've seen on board@ and members@, it is clear that many 
senior members of the ASF think only PMC votes are binding for releases. 
  That's not to say that other votes have no value, but rather just that 
the PMC has the final sign-off and responsibility for releases.  In 
theory, perhaps a PMC can delegate that responsibility to a project's 
committers, but that'd be frowned on by many.  So I think we should be 
conservative and observe the 3+ PMC members rule.

Also note that anyone who votes on a release binary should download it, 
test it, check it's signature, etc., and not just trust that it contains 
what was agreed on.

Doug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message