On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 22:05, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Plan: raise an issue, and we fix it. >> >> Not sure what else you're looking for. > > I was just pointing out that if you want to do the release review > based on an existing 1.6.x release, I wouldn't expect it to be fully > compliant with Apache policies (license headers, etc.) and would > accept a plan on how those issues will be (or already are being) > resolved in the first Apache release of Subversion (1.7.0?). To me > that would satisfy the release-related exit criteria we have. > > I'm also fine with the other proposed ways of satisfying or waiving > those exit criteria.
Sigh. You've just looped right back around. I offered a demonstration of the 1.6.x releases as a demonstration of our *process*. But that was deemed unacceptable. The Apache-branded stuff is trunk or 1.7, which has no scheduled release. "No release" was deemed unacceptable. If you want to review *bits* rather than *release process*, then you can take a look at trunk/ or the nightlies that we'll soon produce. If you want release process *and* Apache-branding, then the svn community is not prepared to provide that, nor do I think it necessary (see the deferred vote for waiving a release). But your above paragraph is some conflation of release practices, legal review, and how this fits into graduation requirements. And I just got done with a frustrating several days on that issue. What do you want? ugh, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
