On 1 December 2013 19:09, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific. > > The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the > artifacts under review. Expanding it to include unrelated concerns imposes an > unnecessary cost each time someone goes through the checklist. > > Let's not make the release process any harder than it needs to be.
Which is easier? - have one checklist with some items that don't apply to all release votes - have separate checklists for releases with and without binary artifacts >> It does not necessarily need to be a separate check item. >> Just a reminder that the N&L files are specific to the distributed >> items (SCM or release artifact). > > I'm apprehensive that a single checklist which tries to be all things to all > projects will ultimately prove unworkable. The design pressure is building > and eventually, customization will be the only answer. AFAICT there are only two different kinds of release votes: - SCM and source - SCM, source and convenience binaries > Nevertheless, I've added a second draft to > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist which attempts to address > your concerns. Here are some of the changes: > > * Pluralize a few items to allow for the possibility that the release > candidate VOTE encompasses multiple archives -- accommodating both > projects which release multiple source archives simultaneously and > projects which make convenience binaries available. > * Require that LICENCE and NOTICE be "correct for each distribution". To my > mind this is superfluous because it was implied by "correct", but it's > certainly something that projects get wrong a lot. The issue is that the N&L files may need to be diffferent for the binary artifacts. This is often overlooked. > * Simplify the testing checklist item to `[ ] All tests pass.` This is > weaker, in that it does not require building and testing of the *source* > archive, but it is more compatible with more configurations. The > checklist item shouldn't require that all tests pass for *all* archives, > because that doesn't work with platform-specific binaries; this language > was the best general compromise I could come up with. > * Change the "license headers" item to specify "source files", in order to > resolve an incidental ambiguity with regards to whether "files" meant > archive files or source files. > > Can you live with this second draft? I don't understand what this means: ASF copyright correct in each top-level NOTICE. Why is it necessary in addition to the following? Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE correct for each distribution. I think there needs to be a separate list of explanations that detail the checks. > Marvin Humphrey > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
