www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Release Policy
Date Fri, 23 May 2014 18:28:03 GMT
I understand the principle behind the 72 hours (or at least, I understand
that it exists to give volunteers more time to find room in their schedule
to test the release).

However, for all 10 or so Flex releases so far involving probably 50
release candidates, there has been almost no additional information gained
after about 24 hours.  I think that is because beyond the half-dozen or so
developers who have actively worked on a particular release, the Apache
Flex community is not inclined to take the time to test source packages,
especially since they don't trust that any particular RC has a higher
likelihood of being the actual release.  They'd rather try the binary
package after it is released, report bugs, and wait for the next one.
Twice now, we've learned about a critical bug shortly after 72 hours
passed and the release was finally announced and had to ship another
release right away and the total time to satisfaction for that customer
was actually delayed by the 72 hour rule.  We had our 3 votes right away,
and then had to wait another 60 hours or so.

I, for one, would definitely prefer to not wait 72 hours for every release
candidate.

Thanks,
-Alex


On 5/23/14 10:59 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>+1... We want to give people a chance to test and
>vote.
>
>On May 23, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>> imo we should keep the 72h as mandatory .
>> If 3 PMC members vote +1 in the first hour then the others still have
>>71h left to -1 and thus decline the release.
>> 
>> I could only think about exceptions for e.g. 0-day exploits if more
>>than half of the PMC members did cast a +1 already.
>> But this rarely happens and users are free (and even welcomed!) to
>>'test' our staged releases.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> On Friday, 23 May 2014, 18:56, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> This current proposal no longer requires 72 hour voting.  To me, this
>> means that we could eventually automate releasing to the point where the
>> CI prepares a set of packages with MD5 sums separately prepares a report
>> of all new files and all files with changes to the headers.
>> 
>> The RM then runs another tool that downloads the packages, verifies the
>> MD5, signs with the PGP key (yes, the RM has to type in their password)
>> and uploads it to the RC server.
>> 
>> Then three folks run another tool that downloads the packages, verifies
>> signatures, expands the source package, runs RAT, downloads an SCM tag,
>> compares the source against the tag, runs the default ant or maven
>>target,
>> and prepares a report with the LICENSE and NOTICE files and headers of
>>new
>> files and changed headers and RAT output.
>> 
>> As soon as three folks vote +1 and there are not more -1's, another tool
>> is run to push it to the release server.
>> 
>> Would this meet requirements and be acceptable?
>> 
>> What if a machine did the downloading of packages, signature
>>verification,
>> RAT, SCM compare and build so the voters only need to review a report
>> before voting.  Would that also meet requirements and be acceptable?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 5/23/14 8:43 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >People perform releases. They can use whatever tools
>> >they want, but at the end, the only validation check
>> >that really matters are those PMC members who test,
>> >validate and +1 the release.
>> >
>> >For example, let's say that there is a codebase that
>> >doesn't pass some test, but get's the required 3 +1s
>> >for release and the RM doesn't pull it. Even though
>> >according to the CI (or whatever) it's "not a release"
>> >(it failed), as far as the PMC and the ASF is concerned,
>> >it IS a release.
>> >
>> >Conversely, no matter what a CI may test, package and
>> >drop off somewhere, if it's not voted on, it's not
>> >a release.
>> >
>> >On May 23, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>> >
>> >> C'mon Sebb. This is circular false logic.
>> >> 
>> >> On May 23, 2014 10:29 AM, "sebb" <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 May 2014 16:01, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>> >> > @mark agree, there are many layers to the stated legal perception
>>and
>> >>indeed
>> >> > most other OSS projects do not require a VOTE. It was communicated
>>to
>> >>me
>> >> > that the VOTE specifically mitigated risk to the releasing
>>individual
>> >> > (publishing artifacts to ./dist). This, and human error, are
>> >>mitigated by
>> >> > not using humans to perform those actions susceptible to human
>>error.
>> >>That
>> >> > is the point of a CI system and automated builds. All the actions
>>of a
>> >> > release could be done by a machine and ensuring the policy will
>>allow
>> >>that
>> >> > is what I'm looking for.
>> >> 
>> >> However, the CI and automated build systems are created by fallible
>> >>humans.
>> >> 
>> >> This is why it is important to ensure that the release vote contains
>> >> sufficient details for an independent check of the source release
>> >> contents against the SCM tag.
>> >> 
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Brian, we only specifically talked about whether we should be
>> >>allowed to
>> >> >> give_intermediate_ build artifacts like nightly builds, etc to
>> >>interested
>> >> >> people. I personally find it a bit too restrictive to not allow
to
>> >>publish
>> >> >> those for user testing. We (the foundation) already do this via
>>our
>> >> >> snapshots maven repos...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And there are also different layers of 'legal'. There is no law
in
>> >>the US
>> >> >> nor otherwhere in the world who requires a VOTE before an
>>opensource
>> >> >> release. JBoss doesn't do it, Eclipse doesn't do it, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BUT: it is an ASF policy and thus binding for all our projects
to
>> >>VOTE on
>> >> >> releases.
>> >> >> And it is a really good one as it increases the technical and
>>legal
>> >> >> quality of our products! It's really a good thing to have 10+
>>people
>> >>looking
>> >> >> at a release and e.g. discovering that a file has the wrong
>>license
>> >>and
>> >> >> should get removed again for example. And of course it helps
>> >>reducing the
>> >> >> risk from getting sued because we obviously try to minimize human
>> >>errors.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> @Shane I'm not sure how many ASF members are subscribed to the
>>legal
>> >>list,
>> >> >> maybe it is enough if we just rise awareness.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LieGrue,
>> >> >> strub
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thursday, 22 May 2014, 23:19, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "But the point already got covered and answered dozens of times
>>imo.
>> >>The
>> >> >> answer is that the ALv2 protects the foundation and also the
>>release
>> >>manager
>> >> >> already for all bona fides cases. End of story."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Interesting for myself to note that it was communicated very
>> >>directly to
>> >> >> Cordova that this *was not* the case. Votes are a necessary
>> >>component for a
>> >> >> valid (aka legal) release. Also interesting for me to discover
in
>> >>this
>> >> >> thread that the release policy is not adhered to by all ASF
>> >>projects. We
>> >> >> were lead to believe the rules are immutable, all projects obey
>> >>them. End of
>> >> >> story.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am dismayed to discover this is not the case and Cordova was
>> >>singled
>> >> >> out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However, clarity here is a great starting to amending the rules,
>>and
>> >>I
>> >> >> recognize this effort is not forum for that. My perspective: the
>> >>vote is a
>> >> >> SHOULD and most certainly SHA verifciation SHOULD be the job of
a
>> >>computer
>> >> >> (aka CI system) and not a human and I am very happy to hear there
>>is
>> >> >> precedent for this with other projects.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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
>> 
>> 
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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


Mime
View raw message