On 6/22/15, 10:33 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >> but I don’t think there is a minimum level of scrutiny required in >>order to cast a binding >> vote. > >As per [1] you need to: >"Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source >code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable >on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets >the requirements of the ASF policy on releases.” > >So yes there is a minimum. > >That being said the script does do most of that and even if you don’t >vote or not 100% sure of the requirements then checking / testing a >release in the time you have is still a good thing to do. IMO, the script asks you about all of the things in the paragraph you quoted, excepting testing the results of the build. The installer build does run an automated test of ant_on_air. But my point about minimum scrutiny was that checking a release can take minutes not hours, because you don’t have to scrutinize every word in the various text files each time, especially for releases without huge changes to the code base. > >The PMC in general, and the PMC chair in particular (as an officer of the >Foundation) is responsible for compliance with requirements. [2] But again, I don’t know of any documentation of the minimum level of effort, time or scrutiny required in order to be considered compliant. We’ve done our best each time, but as you know, we still find mistakes long after we ship something. I’d rather have more folks try to review than not bother because we make it sound too hard. -Alex > >1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release >2. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html#release_manager >
