On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Billie Rinaldi <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > > Going by the standards of a release vote, voting is actually the > > appropriate time to discover fundamental issues. That's kind of the > whole > > point of voting -- getting people to agree that there are no fundamental > > issues with what you're voting on. Finding valid, justifiable issues > > should be welcome, as it results in a better product, whether the product > > be a release or a community standard. > > > > > > > As an aside, this is not encouraged in our current release process. > > The test practices for a release take longer than the voting period for an > RC. This directly implies that the fundamental issues must have been worked > out prior to a call to vote. > Our disagreement here might largely be due to differing definitions of "fundamental issues." Also, I think you might be blocking out what happened between the first 1.5.0 release candidate and the last? =) > > I've been fine with this interpretation, largely because it lines up with > Apache guidelines around votes: do the consensus building work up front. If > we're going to use a release vote as a time to do primary vetting, then we > should probably change our RC vote window. >
