On 10/13/13 6:55 PM, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, Benedikt Ritter wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> one of the points that seem to always come up once in a while is the >> process of releasing components. I've never done it myself so I'm asking >> people who have done it: > > I find myself wondering why a release vote is anything more than: > > "I propose that r6525 of <dir> be tagged as 3.2. What say ye all?" > > That might focus us on the #1 step of whether the API and code is good and > relegate all the artifact juggling to a post release step. The tag (or src > tarball of the scm dir) is the important thing - the rest is artifact > pain/noise and could be handled by different people. > > As it is we have a long laundry list of steps to master and get by the 3 or > 4 RC fails before a release is done. And the list is always changing. Too > much expertise is needed. It also makes us Maven specific, which may limit > us if we think broader in the future. We' turn down a JavaScript component > because I doesn't fit in with out release process. > > I propose release votes be simple revision based requests and involve no > artifact churn :)
I like this idea in principal, but I am not sure that it is practical, at least until we get a really functional release packaging and deployment process in place. I have always thought that what we actually release is source code. There I am with you. The problem is that we need another way to ensure appropriate oversight for "publication" of artifacts to make sure that anything that can be construed as coming from the Commons PMC has the appropriate contents and nothing else. Our painful gauntlet of RC preparation now more or less ensures that. If you are proposing that we stop officially pushing stuff to maven central, for example, that is an interesting proposition but one that would probably hurt us community-wise. If we do continue to push stuff there, we need oversight, so this proposal just ends up postponing the trauma to post-release and introducing some latency. On the other hand, once we get to the point where we can "trust our tools" so that the path from good tag to good artifacts is fully automated, this will work. Unfortunately, we are just not there yet. And when we *do* get there, this will all be moot ;) Could be I am misunderstanding the proposal. Do you mean a) RM is not obligated to do anything but tag a release and create tarballs or b) RM should just be trusted to "do the right thing" in getting stuff published and other other PMC members should review / help with "post-release" stuff ad hoc? Could be b) could work as long as we collectively agree to keep an eye on things / review stuff outside of RC votes. Phil > > Hen > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
