I would like to go a step further and go for auto builds with no manual involvement. For this we must be able to produce same binaries independent from the build machine so we can verify the build by beeing able to create a reference build. In order to ensure that what we build is the result from the source code we use.
And there we will have to look that we get 3 reference builders that verify our binary. Am 19. Oktober 2017 13:32:28 MESZ schrieb Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>: >On 10/18/2017 5:35 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >> >>> On Oct 18, 2017, at 4:45 PM, Pedro Lino <pedro.l...@mailbox.org> >wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Maybe we need to ask for review of >http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval at the >same time as looking at the voting process documentation. If taken >literally, a PMC member who cannot do builds from source can't cast a >+1 vote, because their vote is binding and a binding +1 requires a >build from source. >>> >>> Probably the ASF wants to guarantee that at least 3 PMC members are >developers (or development inclined)? >> >> It’s not probably. It *IS*! > >If that is the purpose, it is not a very efficient way of achieving it. >It would take less of my time, for example, to attach an abbreviated CV >that I could write once and use for each vote, perhaps just a list of >degrees, patents, and former employers. > >> >>> >>>> What I would like is to change it to require at least three PMC >members to declare they have done a build from source and tested the >result. Other PMC members could vote based on binary testing and >signature checking without building. >>> >>> Actually for a multi-platform software such as AOO it should be >required that building from source and testing the result was carried >out by at least one voter (PMC member or not) for each of the >platforms/bit depths. >>> If all three PMC members have success in building on e.g. Linux x64 >it does not provide any guarantee for the other platforms (as proven by >4.1.4 RC4) >> >> We had two PMC providing the community builds. The official release >is the Source release. We need as much testing as possible of the >community releases. AOO is a unique project for Apache because our >users count on the community builds and not the source releases. >> >> I think we have grown in the last year because in the first years >here at Apache most of the knowledge on how to build was in the minds >of the former Hamburg team - Star, Sun, Oracle and then IBM employees. >> >> Special thanks to Matthias and Jim how providing the Community >Builds. > >I really get convinced that the source code is good for building >purposes by seeing people I trust upload binaries for each >combination of language and supported platform. I then download a few >of >the binaries and test them. > >During the vote period I do a ritual build of one combination on my own >hardware, and test the resulting binary, just to satisfy the ASF rules. >I would rather spend more time testing binaries that people are going >to >use rather than testing a binary I'm going to throw away. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
