On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Mark Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19/02/2014 12:31, Ian Clelland wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Ross Gardler < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > >> It's unfortunate that there are a couple of -1's on the current release > >> VOTE thread at a time where the Cordova project is being asked to > improve > >> their release processes. So as to avoid a potentially bad experience > during > >> this vote I want to ensure the community is aware of the voting > guidelines > >> for releases, > >> > >> Specifically I want to remind the project that a release is not subject > to > >> a veto. > > > > > > Thanks for trying to clarify here, Ross. > > > > Does this mean that the vote thread here is absolutely binding? That is, > if > > there is no visible trail on the mailing list that anyone has changed > their > > minds, and after the allotted period, there are still more +1s than -1s > > (from PMC members) that the release happens regardless? > > No. A release manager is free to cancel the release if they view that > the issue that triggered the -1 vote(s) is serious enough to do that. > They are also free to continue and do the release if they wish. > > Generally, when I have been the release manager for Tomcat and an RC > gets a -1 vote I have cancelled the vote/release there and then as > anything serious enough to trigger a -1 release vote is normally serious > enough to cancel the release. > > I'm fairly sure (although I'd have to check the archives to be sure) > that I have also proceeded to release anyway after someone votes -1 in > at least one case. Usually the justification for carrying on is some > combination of: > - the issue is not a blocker (e.g. legal , license, etc) > - the issue exists in the current stable release and no-one has > complained about it > - the release fixes an issue in the current stable release that folks > have been complaining about > - the issue is minor and can/should be treated like any other bug and > fixed (probably in the next release) > > So the short version: the vote result provides the authority to release > but does not mandate that the release happens. > > HTH, > It definitely does, Mark -- thanks. I wanted to make sure, with a published 24 hour voting window, that we didn't need to wake everybody who had already voted and convince them to look at the -1s to prevent an automatic release. Glad to hear that there's some common sense in the loop :) > Mark >
