On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 17:29 +0100, sebb wrote: >> On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 16:49 +0100, sebb wrote: >> > > On 13/05/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > > 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? >> > > > >> > > >> > > No idea. >> > > >> > > But I hope it's agreed that source releases must be voted on by the PMC. >> > > Maven includes source, and is a release. >> > > >> > > > >> > > > > 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? >> > > >> > > This is actually quite easy, see >> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSSITE-55 >> > > >> > > > 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. >> > > >> > > It's not arbitrary. >> > > >> > >> > >> > I am sorry, Sebastian, but per comment from legal unless the Board makes >> > a clear statement, it is just arbitrary >> >> Source releases still require PMC votes. >> > > Sure, that is why there are source packages (zip and tarball). >
Yes and i think thats the difference between this type of release and things like the maven plugin releases which are just published as jars in the maven repository and nothing else so there is no easy way to recreate the jar. With this type of release there is a source distribution published and you can use that to recreate all the binary artifacts. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
