Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: unknown (athena.apache.org: error in processing during lookup of
 aharui@adobe.com)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "infrastructure-dev@apache.org" <infrastructure-dev@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Discussion on enabling users to specify own machines as dynamic
 hosts
Thread-Topic: Discussion on enabling users to specify own machines as
 dynamic hosts
Thread-Index: 
 AQHPWaXAR4sF/aeED0ynZqfwXuxD5ZsUmi0A//+SoACAAHhNAP//j0YAgAB3owD//5TaAAAPGryAAAHfXwD//6ofAA==
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:43:56 +0000
Message-ID: <CF744AA1.1FA53%aharui@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAGaRif1i-LhduVZhDXpgr1WPUyp7rMt0EMnFCzg6fcm-EryWkQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACK5iZcCQ5Bar2tiVVQAQpcJC_XM0OxH=65ugBR9k1XSe+-FfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF742729.1F96C%aharui@adobe.com>
 <CACK5iZfMQTr7G0Ai7Y1bMUkQJeJseFWEa3VZyOT9s0Fj14J3cg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF742D98.1F98B%aharui@adobe.com>
 <CAK2iWdRNFKoqaTKavqEHu67-xJQ5EKu4hC0r=+EB2gsfGc1X=g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CF74391A.1F9FB%aharui@adobe.com>
 <CAK2iWdRf8SwQFZb7hAofqWnowXQcK9nrTSRGO-O2UA7cbewBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACK5iZeY_NswTGHDpNM-jFskBxFRjwACFcfCcvnbR2xm4sW7VA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACK5iZeY_NswTGHDpNM-jFskBxFRjwACFcfCcvnbR2xm4sW7VA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
received-spf: None (: adobe.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <9C84BBAD77EFCE44B819A37559C9674B@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0


On 4/16/14 2:51 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >There is a big difference between developer builds which can happen
>> > >everywhere (I also build on my own machine), and builds that are
>>sent to
>> > >tester or maybe even voted on.
>> > Are we allowed to vote on bits built by a CI server?
>> >
>>
>> I have raised this question a couple of times, and the answers have been
>> consistent:
>>
>> As a PMC you need to get the source and build it, in order to validate
>>it,
>> but builds from trusted buildbots can be used for validation. And just
>>at
>> apacheCon denver one discussion concluded that build machines where we
>> (asf) do not know whats installed cannot be seen as secure.
>>
>>
>Also, official releases need to be signed by a committer (Release Manager)
>There is a chance that the artifact could get corrupted (maliciously or
>because of a network error) during the download to the committers machine.
>It seems unwise for a committer to sign an artifact that they din't build
>themselves.
That's true, but I think I've seen others argue that if the buildbot has a
checksum on the bits you know it didn't get corrupted coming to your
machine.

-Alex