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: Continuous release review
Date Fri, 30 May 2014 17:09:13 GMT
Hi Martin,

Actually, I think your assumptions about the motivations and goals are
incorrect.  Let me re-state the principle and rationale behind the hope
that we do not make 72 hours mandatory.

Apache Flex (I cannot speak about Cordova since I am not a member of their
community) has key PMC members in Europe and our most prolific bug-fixer
is actually in Australia.  All are volunteers working in their spare time.
 The flagship Flex SDK has enough i18n code in it, that as an RM, I am
always hoping to get at least one vote from someone outside the US.

The question is, if I get those votes in the first 24 hours, and
historically, after key folks who typically vote have voted (usually,
24-48 hours), what value is there to waiting the full 72?

And then, historically, no Flex release ships without more than 1 RC.
Around RC 3 and above, the changes are quite simple.  Once, it was to
correct the JIRA id of a bug listed in the Release Notes. After that RC is
posted, do we really need to wait 72 hours?  In fact, do we really need 3
votes?

When we reported to board on this issue, it was suggested that we could do
"carryover" voting for RCs with little content change.  We have done that,
but current policy does not explicitly allow it.

To summarize, the idea here is "community over time".  Once enough votes
indicate that there has been sufficient coverage for the changes contained
in the RC, that should be sufficient.  Waiting more time doesn't really
help for most Flex RCs.  Getting releases out to the customers helps more.
 I can't imagine the main Flex SDK release ever taking less than 72 hours
from first RC to final RC, so someone like you will have time to test at
least one RC, and you can always email with a request for more time and
what we might get out of waiting.  As an RM, I would probably wait.  But
for the alpha-level next-generation SDK we are working on, we might want
to have a faster cadence.  There aren't folks using the new SDK in
production work or promises of backwards compatibility, so getting it out
in less than 72 hours might better serve the community.

So for Marvin's policy document one question is:
Is it really 3 votes per RC or 3 votes accumulated over the set of RCs for
a release?

And related:
If the differences between two RCs is small can some of the build and test
steps be skipped?  (Gotta download to at least prove the sigs are ok).

Thanks,
-Alex

On 5/30/14 4:05 AM, "Martijn Dashorst" <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:

>Alex (and several folks from the Cordova community),
>
>I find the constant push for having less than 72 hour wait period to
>be a very excluding, corporate and US centric position.
>
>The world spans 24 hours, contributors (can) come from anywhere. Going
>shorter than 72 hours will prohibit folks from other geographies to
>properly participate in your community: where I count being able to
>properly vote on the culmination of the work that is poured into the
>ASF: i.e. the Release.
>
>I also see it as pure corporate driven: where you are being paid to do
>work on flex (you use your adobe@ address for posting), many folks can
>only contribute outside the 9-5 timeframe and have to do so outside
>the limited hours available to them between tending to their families,
>their health and other activities. Having a smaller timeframe than 72
>hours will severely limit their ability to participate in release
>voting. Or is your proposal to have the ability to function on a PMC
>to be a small, elitist group with corporate backers?
>
>I don't see the 72 hour period to be holding me back: it keeps the
>Community forward looking. It grants folks the opportunity to
>participate, even if they are not yet part of the PMC. If your problem
>is that you have limited participation in checking the release: fix
>that! It might even grow your community. Be inclusive: don't limit the
>ability of your community to participate to your office hours.
>
>Martijn
>
>
>On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/28/14 9:56 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Let's look at it this way... We need to recall that the ASF
>>>is a legal entity, a Delaware corporation with 501(c)3
>>>classification. We are also a *significant* player, resource
>>>and source in the IT eco-system.
>>>
>>>People want to play as if we were selling our
>>>kitchen made cookies at a yard sale; we just bake 'em,
>>>sell em, put the money in an old cigar box and
>>>basically just take it all easy and relaxed. Instead,
>>>we are more like Nabisco selling Nutter Butters
>>>(ignore any implication of quality, etc in this
>>>"analogy")... This is serious stuff we are doing,
>>>stuff that people take seriously, stuff that
>>>interests the IRS, the gov't, "partners", etc...
>> I get that there is a difference between potlucks and manufactured food.
>>
>> What I think several of us want to explore is whether the current
>>release
>> policy/process can be automated in places and still be serious about it.
>>
>> For example, I bought some real estate last year, which I consider a
>> serious process, and was pleasantly surprised to see that some of the
>> paperwork could be digitally signed via web apps (but the final closing
>> document required traditional signing).  That was quite different that
>> when I last bought real estate merely 5 years ago.  Back then, it was
>>all
>> paper and faxing and couriers.
>>
>> And several of us are pushing on this topic because, I'm pretty sure
>>that
>> any bank that still requires all paper and faxing and couriers is
>>finding
>> itself at a competitive disadvantage against the banks that allow
>>digital
>> signing.
>>
>> So the question I have is: where can we use the differences in
>>technology
>> over the past five years to save us time in the release process without
>> sacrificing being "serious".  I would offer that at least a couple of
>> things have changed:
>>
>> 1) smartphones make email available to many people virtually 24/7,
>> eliminating some of the reason for waiting 72 hours to close votes
>> 2) CI servers and automated testing frameworks and security software has
>> evolved to the point where you can safely and securely create valid
>> artifacts without human intervention.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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