That link is for HTTPd. For Apache general guidelines, read http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html -1 are only vetos for "code modification", not "procedural" issues .
Cheers 2013/6/2 Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> > Benson, read the rules: > > http://httpd.apache.org/dev/voting.html > > "*-1 *No, I *veto* this action." > > +1 + -1 != 0 > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Fred Cooke <fred.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> from my experience, even if this question is not absolutely > > scm-specific, > > >> git > > >> brings us a new problem we didn't have with svn: once a tag is set on > > the > > >> canonical repo and replicated on developers' repos, it is not > > automatically > > >> updated if updated in the canonical > > >> > > > > > > Git brings you no such "problem", it simply exposes your extremely poor > > > practices... A tag should, and in any sane place is, permanent and > > > irrevocable. > > > > > > On another note, the veto by -1 vote mechanism is a great idea for a > > > release, but a terrible idea for a principle like this. For a release > it > > > requires a justification, for this it's just "my opinion" overriding > one > > of > > > Maven's core principals. > > > > > > Fred, > > > > Who says that anyone has a veto? As a principle of Apache, very few > > things are subject to veto, and I can't see how this would be one. If > > there's a clear majority of opinion in favor of burning versions, > > we'll start burning versions. I voted -1. I'll live with whatever > > outcome, but I'd live more happily with a more elaborated description > > of the resulting procedure. Like, where and how do we document these > > never-born releases, etc, etc. > > > > --benson > > > > > > > > > > Stagnation wins. > > > > > > Fred. > > > > > > > > >> > > >> but I may miss some git-fu once again... > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> > > >> Hervé > > >> > > >> Le samedi 1 juin 2013 20:47:36 Chris Graham a écrit : > > >> > >but as I see, there seems to be a consensus around a 2-sided rule: > > >> > >- don't reuse version number for pre-releases (RC, etc) > > >> > >- reuse version number for actual releases > > >> > > > >> > Not sure how I feel about that. > > >> > > > >> > alpha/beta/RCx etc, they are all still valid version nos, so I think > > that > > >> > the no re-spin rule should still apply in the same manner. > > >> > > > >> > -Chris > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY < > herve.bout...@free.fr> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > yes, the vote for one unique rule is clearly "-1" > > >> > > > > >> > > but as I see, there seems to be a consensus around a 2-sided rule: > > >> > > - don't reuse version number for pre-releases (RC, etc) > > >> > > - reuse version number for actual releases > > >> > > > > >> > > Regards, > > >> > > > > >> > > Hervé > > >> > > > > >> > > Le samedi 1 juin 2013 08:27:38 Stephen Connolly a écrit : > > >> > > > I will need to recheck the tally, but I think the result is -3 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > So looks like we will be reusing version numbers on respins > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Wednesday, 29 May 2013, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > >> > > > > We have been using a policy of only making releases without > > >> skipping > > >> > > > > version numbers, e.g. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 3.0.0, 3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.0.3, 3.0.4, 3.0.5, etc > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Whereby if there is something wrong with the artifacts staged > > for > > >> > > > > >> > > release, > > >> > > > > >> > > > > we drop the staging repo, delete the tag, roll back the > version, > > >> and > > >> > > > > >> > > run > > >> > > > > >> > > > > again. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This vote is to change the policy to: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > drop the staging repo, document the release as not released, > and > > >> run > > >> > > > > >> > > with > > >> > > > > >> > > > > the next version. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Under this new proposal, if the staged artifacts for 3.1.0 > fail > > to > > >> > > > > meet > > >> > > > > the release criteria, then the artifacts would be dropped from > > the > > >> > > > > >> > > staging > > >> > > > > >> > > > > repository and never see the light of day. The tag would > remain > > in > > >> > > > > SCM, > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > we would document (somewhere) that the release was cancelled. > > The > > >> > > > > >> > > "respin" > > >> > > > > >> > > > > would have version number 3.1.1 and there would never be a > > 3.1.0. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This change could mean that the first actual release of 3.1.x > > might > > >> > > > > >> > > end up > > >> > > > > >> > > > > being 3.1.67 (though I personally view that as unlikely, and > in > > the > > >> > > > > context > > >> > > > > of 3.1.x I think we are very nearly there) > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Please Note: > > >> > > > > >> > > > http://maven.apache.org/developers/release/maven-project-release-procedure > > >> > > > > >> > > > > .html#Check_the_vote_resultsdoes not actually specify what it > > >> means by > > >> > > > > "the process will need to be restarted" so this vote will > > effect a > > >> > > > > >> > > change > > >> > > > > >> > > > > either outcome > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > +1: Never respin with the same version number, always > increment > > the > > >> > > > > version for a respin > > >> > > > > 0: Don't care > > >> > > > > -1: Always respin with the same version number until that > > version > > >> > > > > >> > > number > > >> > > > > >> > > > > gets released > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > This vote will be open for 72 hours. A Majority of PMC votes > > >> greater > > >> > > > > >> > > that > > >> > > > > >> > > > > 3 will be deemed as decisive in either direction (i.e. if the > > sum > > >> is < > > >> > > > > >> > > -3 > > >> > > > > >> > > > > or > +3 then there is a documented result) > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > For any releases in progress at this point in time, it is up > to > > the > > >> > > > > release manager to decide what to do if they need to do a > > respin. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -Stephen > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >> > > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > -- Baptiste <Batmat> MATHUS - http://batmat.net Sauvez un arbre, Mangez un castor !
