On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:38:12 +0000, sebb wrote:
On 30 December 2014 at 01:29, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 02:09:42 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
That thread gets deep. :)
I just wanted to comment on "releasing only
source is faster because of less checks". I disagree with that,
most
release delay/time is due to preparation work. Failed (binary)
checks
are typically for a reason which would also be present in the
source
(especially the POM), so it does not really reduce the number of
rework.
RM is a streamlined procedure: so, if you do (say) 10 steps rather
than 15, it will objectively take less time, and this is compounded
by the additional tests which should (ideally) be performed by the
reviewers. [Thus delaying the release.]
(At least not in most cases, so two votes will actually make us
more work not less).
The additional work exactly amounts to sending _one_ additional
mail.
No.
Both source and binary release need to be checked and voted on.
And the votes need to be tallied, and successful releases have to be
published, and unsuccessful ones dropped.
Yes, so?
If a certain RC would be vetoed only because of a problem with the
binaries? The source could have otherwise been released.
Checking the source release requires (for the reviewer) downloading
all the artifacts and tags.
If the releases are separated in time some of this may have to be
repeated.
What "may have to be repeated" exactly?
You wouldn't have to repeat whatever has been succesfully voted on.
If source was released, you'd only have to check the binaries
(signature),
not the repository.
Even for the RM role, it is more work overall.
Then, as I noted,
* some releases will be done as before (same work)
* some releases will be "source only" (less work)
* some releases will be two-steps, possibly performed by two
different
people (i.e. less work for each RM)
Of course, each release means some work has to be done; then IIUC
your
point, the fewer releases the better. :-}
I'm sorry, but I think you are glossing over several stages in your
presentation of the process.
If you really think your process is going to save work, please detail
the exact stages necessary in both cases.
Why do you see this in black or white?
I never (and I repeated that several times already) intended to ask
that all RM perform a two-step procedure: Anyone willing to RM as usual
will obviously do it as he pleases.
Every time the issue of "we should release more often" comes up, almost
everyone agrees. Every time a discussion occurs on the RM issue,
several
people complain about the complexity of the procedure.
I then propose something to _try_ and improve that situation
(sometimes)
and suddenly, the current procedure is found more efficient than ever.
This information will be needed anyway as documentation if it is ever
agreed upon.
For source-only release, the information is the same as compiled by Luc
(leaving out the Nexus-related steps and possibly replacing the bunch
of
files copied to "https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist"; with the tarball
referred to previously).
IMO, the contradiction is obvious between talk of releasing source-only
and nit-picking that amounts to actually refuse to consider source-only
releases.
Good night,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
