Back when our mentors were casting the binding votes that allowed us to do incubator releases, I believe they ran the minimal steps supported by the approval script. If it was good enough for Apache then, I believe it is good enough now. I made these scripts public so that fellow PMC members, who wish to help the community by getting the latest software released, can do so with the minimum effort and not put the validity of the vote at risk. Remember how we used to see some quick +1 votes and worried that the PMC member didn't check everything? This script tries to make sure they did check the mimimum set of things to cast a valid vote.
The concern that the script will invite folks to do less testing is valid, but IMO, insulting to our fellow PMC members. I think we elected good people who can make the right call between how much optional testing they need to perform and the risk to the project and foundation if we miss something. That said, in future vote threads, I will try to mention that additional testing is encouraged. And if I forget please add to the discuss thread. Now can we get on to voting? -Alex On 6/18/14 4:35 AM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: >Hi, > >IMO there a big gap between what minimally required for a valid release >and what is a good release. A lot of Apache knowledge is not codified >into rules or even guidelines. Please don't be put off testing a >release, you certainly don't have to do everything I put on that list >(and there's a few things I missed). The currently process sort of >assumes that if enough people look at it and test it in different ways >then most things will be caught most of the time. IMO reducing that to a >simple script that only checks a few things means we'll miss stuff. I >agree it's a useful tool, but it doesn't replace due diligence when >voting on a release. > >Thanks, >Justin
