www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Continuous release review
Date Fri, 30 May 2014 13:25:11 GMT
Who says that we can't... in fact, we should. We should
use technology as much as we can. But CI does not
remove the need for reviewing/vetting/verifying
the release as we do (and should).

It appears to me that many people are arguing that
the existance of CI obliviates the need to perform
the release process (eg: 3 +1s, 72 hour wait, etc)...
That is the issue we are trying to clear up.

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 03:04:17PM +0200, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> I'm curious, why not having both?
> 
> 1) A CI tool to ease things
> 2) To continue to review releases as it's done now
> 
> Jacques
> 
> Le 30/05/2014 14:22, Jim Jagielski a ?crit :
> >The Board expects the PMC to do its job, and the
> >Board expects the PMC Chair to do his/her job.
> >
> >If they don't, the board acts; and, as has been said
> >many times, the board is not a surgical scalpel; it
> >is a hammer.
> >
> >On May 30, 2014, at 8:09 AM, Emmanuel L?charny <elecharny@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Le 29/05/2014 17:47, Jim Jagielski a ?crit :
> >>>On May 29, 2014, at 11:28 AM, Emmanuel L?charny <elecharny@gmail.com>

> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Le 29/05/2014 15:56, Jim Jagielski a ?crit :
> >>>>>I disagree. And until the policy is changed, PMCs and
> >>>>>RMs are expected and *required* to comply.
> >>>>Yes, but actually, most f the PMCs and RMs *aren't* Like it or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>...
> >>>>And, yes, it's probably a good idea to fix the policy if it can't be
> >>>>enforced.
> >>>>
> >>>To be clear: If it is found out that there are "releases" out
> >>>there that really aren't releases, the board will tell the
> >>>PMC to:
> >>>
> >>>  1: Remove those releases immediately.
> >>>  2: Re-release those "releases" as real releases
> >>>     by complying w/ the release policy (basically,
> >>>     taking those "releases" and doing the required
> >>>     vetting and voting).
> >>>
> >>>The board can, and will, also remove a PMCs ability
> >>>to "release" stuff if it refuses to comply with the
> >>>release policy. So it can be enforced. It is being
> >>>enforced. It will be enforced.
> >>This is not an enforcement. This is a punishment. And it's totally vain.
> >>
> >>Unless the board is ready to check all the releases for all the 151
> >>projects, and verify that *every* PMC member is eventually going through
> >>the whole process, this is just a void statement.
> >>
> >>Btw, just tell me how you are going to control that ? I'm curious...
> >>OTOH, we van make it easier for the PMC members to cast a vote, by
> >>verifying the output of a documented/replayable process, which will take
> >>a few minutes instead of hours in some cases. How possibly can someone
> >>object that it would be a progress ?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
        "Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war"  ~ John Adams

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


Mime
View raw message