I don't think a valid site or the odd missing file is enough to cancel a release - but if there are multiple such issues it should also be taken into consideration.
Even the odd -1 vote can be ignored if there are enough positive votes. On 15 September 2016 at 12:42, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: > On 2016-09-15, Gilles wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote: >>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are >>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at >>> Github." > >>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we >>> can >>> improve it. This needs a separate thread. > >> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process >> is a "nightmare". > > I don't share this sentiment. There are a quite a few manual steps, but > I don't believe they can be avoided. > > Then again I've cut enough releases to know which alternative has worked > for me. > > My workflow is different enough that it likely never is the first option > you find in the docs. At least when uploading stuff to Nexus it is not > even listed as alternative at all (I use an upload bundle). I didn't > want to pollute the instructions with even more alternatives. > >> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part >> of the distribution files? > > I don't think anybody decided that. What I'd expect (I didn't > participate in the RNG vote, sorry) is that the source distribution > matches the git tag. And I think this was what Stian brought up. It's > not about the two files but about the difference between tag and > distribution. > > We've probably never formally said the two should match either, it's > just what I'd expect. Why would anybody want to exclude anything from > the source distribution that is inside or SCM? > >>> It's rare to release without more than one RC. > >> You'd have to wonder why. > > One thing RMs tend to forget is that there is no veto on a release > vote. If you've got enough +1s you can simply go ahead if you disagree > with the occasional -1. > >>> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or >>> github, is wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about >>> overall attention to detail... > >> Nothing _looks_ lame. > > Please mind Gary's "IMO" in the paragraph above. > > "lame" is hardly objective :-) > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- Stian Soiland-Reyes http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
