Moving questions out of the lazy consensus thread. On Sat, 11 Feb 2023 at 01:51, Michael Bien <mbie...@gmail.com> wrote: > questions:
A few good points for thought - we will possibly tweak a little before running the vote ... or feel free to edit ... > The text mentions sig testing but there are no checkboxes for that. This > creates an uncertainly whether or not someone read the manual or skipped to > the boxes. We've always had that problem, though. Part of me thinks that if a PMC member doesn't know what they're required to do before voting, we have bigger issues .. :-) But it might be useful to better spell it out for community, non-binding, votes. Mind you, if you look at the OpenOffice vote, it's pretty much just the check form and no instructions - https://lists.apache.org/thread/kt1jwt6zzzc5koq3pgyvgd8qm8gx6omh In some ways I like the succinctness. We have more things to link to - at least 4 different artefact locations - but we could move all the instructions out of the email onto a web page? > (also: should I try to automate the sig test in a manually triggered > workflow?) Possibly! I'm not sure of the easiest way to do this. We also have code signing checks for Windows and macOS (along with notarization) to verify. There was some talk on infra@ a little while back about automated testing of hashes and gpg signing on dist.a.o. I think that used to be in place. We also have a shell script that we use in the release process - https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/netbeans/testrelease.sh Someone other than the signing person running that might be good. > those are very "catch-all". This could be anything between "i checked the > welcome page" and "i opened some RL <insert language> projects and worked > with the release for the rest of the day". Would a "what I tested" section be > useful or is this just noise? Since I usually mentioned what I tested in past > voting threads - if I don't have to do this anymore its fine with me of > course. Again, that's a problem we've always had. I wouldn't say that's noise, just prompting other voters to the level of checking they might do? We could add an additional info bit at the bottom that could be optionally filled out? It doesn't change the validity of votes, though, nor change the fact that it's really that level of testing on RCs that's most useful. Assuming we don't get any last minute major issue, 17-rc3 and 17 are identical - I would hope most people on dev@ have already done the "i opened some RL <insert language> projects and worked with the release for the rest of the day" part! And the "I've built from source" part for that matter. The vote is not the time to find problems there. Best wishes, Neil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@netbeans.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@netbeans.apache.org For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists
