Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject: Re: Asking on users@ for release candidate testers
From: Richard Eckart de Castilho <rec@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <b949b298cb814023907deef1c7a0c924@BL2PR02MB500.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 10:21:05 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F41AE006-69D1-45F5-B406-D1CEDFA8CBD9@apache.org>
References: 
 <f9c9e96611e44f4984ff227c5ea56cee@BL2PR02MB500.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>,<CAM1oqKpLu7n9LpAdF_bRc7qC_qWvNpFBr13HpzrwzGTzFaYd9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <b949b298cb814023907deef1c7a0c924@BL2PR02MB500.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
To: legal-discuss@apache.org

If I understood the debate correctly, the release process is in place to =
provide protection to the release manager by making the release an act =
of the foundation (or better: the project PMC) rather than of the =
individual release manager alone. E.g. the PMC should should check if =
legal standards are met (LICENSE, NOTICE, etc.) and so on.

I would imagine that if a formal vote was passed by the PMC on a release =
candidate, basically running the RC through the release process but not =
calling it yet a final release due to a public testing period, then the =
RC would meet the same standards and could be advertised on users list. =
However, this is just my opinion/suggestion to the group as a humble =
developer - I am not a lawyer or anything the likes.

However, the question would be why not to simply call it a proper =
release, collect feedback from the community, and then do a bugfix =
release (if necessary) soon after.

Cheers,

-- Richard

On 30.06.2014, at 09:22, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:

> =46rom [1]:
> "During the process of developing software and preparing a release, =
various packages are made available to the developer community for =
testing purposes. Do not include any links on the project website that =
might encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, =
snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package. The only =
people who are supposed to know about such packages are the people =
following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware of the =
conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public =
are downloading such test packages, then remove them."
>=20
> We certainly ask for help on the dev@ list.  But I interpreted the =
above to mean that we shouldn't advertise RCs on the users@ ML.  I'd be =
happy to be wrong.
>=20
> [1] http://apache.org/dev/release.html
>=20
> ________________________________________
> From: Kevan Miller [kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2014 12:15 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Asking on users@ for release candidate testers
>=20
> Their participation should be strongly encouraged IMO. Why do you =
think its against policy? Let's fix it any doc that implies otherwise...
>=20
> On Jun 30, 2014 12:00 AM, "Alex Harui" =
<aharui@adobe.com<mailto:aharui@adobe.com>> wrote:
> Hi, it's me again.
>=20
> Today's debate is about whether Apache Flex can email its users@ ML =
and ask folks there to help us test the current release candidate.  I =
think current release policy says no.  But is there a loophole where we =
can email users@ and ask folks to join dev@ in order to find out how to =
test the RC?
>=20
> Thanks,
> -Alex


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