www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Continuous release review
Date Mon, 02 Jun 2014 12:38:16 GMT
Hi,

On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com> wrote:
> You may be referring to:
>>
>> For example, do we really need for everyone to download, compile and
>> test the code before casting a +1, when a CI server can do this just
>> as well if not better.
>
>   Yes. Yes we do.
>
> Note that this was in response to the concept of "rubber
> stamping" a release, the idea being that anything out
> of a CI is already assumed to be +1 worthy.

At least I read your response more literally, thanks for clarifying.

> So tell me, assuming that you also agree w/ the idea
> that an artifact out of a CI should not be blindly rubber-
> stamped w/ a +1, what process would you go through to
> convince you, for yourself, that it is ready for release?

The point that I'm trying to make here is that if we can guarantee
that what goes into a build is ready for release (reviewed, voted on,
etc.), then the output of the build (assuming the build server is
properly built and maintained for this purpose) should equally be OK
to release. At least I don't see any of Bertrand's invariants being
violated. Am I mistaken?

> Again, we vote on a release artifact.

My argument is that at least in some cases it would be better to
review and vote on the sources that go into the release than the
artifact itself. It would be nice if we could find a way to adapt the
policy to allow also such a release process.

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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


Mime
View raw message