On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
This is one of those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
One "shortcut" that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the package had already met with general approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
