www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <hyand...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Clarification on the release requirements
Date Sat, 09 May 2009 08:45:11 GMT
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>> > Can we get this carved in marble somewhere? /Larry
>
> Jeff Thompson responded:
>> That would have to be a pretty big marble, or, I guess, very small
>> writing. ...
>
> Perhaps Jeff will volunteer to summarize this thread as ten bullet items?
> :-)

* Roy declared official policy based on tribal knowledge as known to
some sect at Apache (the C guys as usual).
* The next step is always a 100+ mail thread.
* Java guys in general professed ignorance to mask unhappiness at
having to be like the C guys.
* The Maven guys rallied around to push in the direction they're already going.
* Joe made a land grab for Infra on being not only the maintainers of
dev/, but also the authors.
* General tech approach picks holes in the C method by suggesting the
RM might have them vote on a trick.
* Jochen suggests a compromise also known as the current Java approach.
* Git gets brought up because it's better than SVN.
* Two lawyers wondered why this was wasting space on legal-discuss@.
* Henri offended everyone by making rude and incorrect statements
regarding the thread.

As a special bonus - #11:

* Nothing much happens. Life goes on as usual in projects using a
perfectly reasonable release process in most people's eyes, dev/ gets
something put in it that will still cause arguments and as no one is
told there has been a critical change it takes years to get out
through social networking where people use the dev/ page as
justification of their read. Hopefully we only end up with one set of
opinions floating out there, but more likely it ends up splintering
into three separate interpretations that end up as a thread on a
random mailing list 2 years later to deal with yet another detail.

Personal thoughts.....

If the unit tests pass, the release is good. What's all this "and we
test it on our particular platform before a +1"? [yeah, turns out the
testing you do is dependent on the project and I work on easy
projects].

Sod the "you must build a source release, then build the binary". It's
easy enough to do what we're all doing and add a step to confirm that
the binary we build from the source release matches our binary
release.

If someone does not believe that the release manager built from the
SVN tag, then they can also build source from SVN and compare.

I'm amazed there's not been a suggestion that we build an application
to solve it. That's the real technical Godwin's Law - when a process
is being argued about and someone starts saying we should write
software.

-- looking forward to discussing this topic at ApacheCon --

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message