On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 15:51 +0100, sebb wrote: > On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 10:41 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 01:12 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > > > On 12/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Please vote on releasing these packages as HttpComponents Client > > > > > > 4.1-alpha2. The vote is open for the next 72 hours, and only > > votes from > > > > > > HttpComponents PMC members are binding. The vote passes if at > > least > > > > > > three binding +1 votes are cast and there are more +1 than -1 > > votes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Packages: > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/~olegk/httpclient-4.1-alpha2/ > > > > > > > > > > Please can you upload the Maven packages as well, so we can vote on > > those too? > > > > > > > > > > Should be largely a formality if the main packages are OK, but they > > do > > > > > need to be voted on. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian, we have been through that, haven't we? Only source package > > > > represents an official release artifact that needs to be voted on. > > > > > > The Maven artifacts always include source files, either as source jars > > > (which should be provided), if not then at least pom.xml will be > > > included. > > > > > > > Binary artifacts are merely byproducts. If you want to verify they are > > > > ok, you should build them from source. > > > > > > That's not strictly true either - binary artifacts need to be > > > inspected to ensure that the appropriate N&L files are present. > > > > > > > > > Please see > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-34 > > > > Which was never really resolved and anyway does not cover the point > about N&L at all. >
Precisely. Hen's statement boils down to a simple fact that there is no ASF wide policy on the matter and it is up to individual projects unless the Board rules otherwise. > > > > > > My main problem is not with uploading a bunch of files, but the fact > > you > > > > are changing an established release process in the middle of a release > > > > without prior discussion and a consent from other committers. > > > > > > My point is that the process is IMO not following the ASF standard, > > > and therefore needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > There is no ASF standard. It is up to individual projects. Please see > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-34 > > Not really relevant as source releases must be approved by the PMC. > The Maven artefacts include source, and therefore must be voted on. > Is there an official statement to that effect by the Board I could have a look at? > Regardless of the JIRA issue, I think the consumers of ASF releases > have a right to expect that the archives etc have been formally > approved as part of the "quality control" applied by the ASF > organisation. > > Why not just publish the Maven artefacts so we can include them in the vote? > How exactly do you suggest that I do that, as the artifacts are generated by Maven from source at deployment time? Besides, the release process is already is painful enough. I see no good reason for making it even more painful due to some completely arbitrary requirement. If you want Maven artifacts included in the release process, you should raise this matter with the PMC, and ideally not in the middle of a release. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
