On 11/5/12, Marvin Humphrey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Joachim Dreimann > <[email protected]> wrote: >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC >> members >> if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all? > > Sorry, no.
:'( >> We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is >> already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released. > > That may be challenging. > [...] > > What I might suggest in general is doing things to get the code base > squeaky > clean and plainly so. > > * Make sure that the release passes RAT. > * In fact, set up a buildbot to run RAT on a regular basis. Already discussed [1]_ [2]_ [3]_ . Numbers may be tricky . Most of the Unknown/Unlicensed files are those found in the (patched) copy of trac we keep in the repository . I'm not sure of whether we should ignore them . I don't know if anything new has been done about that either ... but we definitely should not have so many files (547 ?) in conflict . [...] > > * Script your release process and integrate legal checks into it. > yes , that's a good point ;) .. [1] RE: RAT builds (http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-bloodhound-dev/201208.mbox/%[email protected]%3E) .. [2] Rat Report (http://ci.apache.org/projects/bloodhound/rat-output.html) .. [3] RAT Reports summaries for participating projects (http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html) -- Regards, Olemis. Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
