On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey < > mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > > >>> ... Second, I'm amused that the "commits list" item was quietly > dropped, > >>> but new checklist items have been inserted regarding the dev and > private > >>> lists... > >> > >> Pure oversight on my part, sorry...but what would we do if no reviewer > >> follows the commit lists? I don't think that's a reason to kill a > release. > > > > Oversight of the commit list is vital; that is how we ensure that SCM > > only contains material that is permitted. > > > > The source release is then checked against SCM to ensure we are only > > published vetted material. > > > > If there is no review of the commit list, then the whole system breaks > down. > > I certainly agree that following the commits list is essential (and sought > to > emphasize as much in the post at the top of the thread). I'd barely even > considered the possibility that *none* of the reviewers might be following > the commits list. > > However, I think that Bertrand's "provenance" checklist item largely > achieves > what I'd been grasping for with the "commits list" item, and fits much > better > into the context of approving the release. If nobody's following the > commits > list, that's an issue with serious implications for the project, but it's > not > a direct release blocker. If provenance is unsettled, though, that clearly > blocks the release. > > Personally, I wouldn't feel confident checking the "provenance" item if I > wasn't watching the commits list. It's true that the person making the > commit > affirms that they have the right to their contribution, but still, I feel > like > you need to at least be aware of what contributions have gone into the > product. > > Maybe there ought to be a note to such effect on the explanations page. > But > in any case, I'm OK with the "commits list" item disappearing, so long as > the > "provenance" item stays. > > As of revision 14 (removing the "dev list" and "private list" items) I'm > now > generally satisfied with the content of the checklist items and hope to > move > on to refining the workflow and surrounding documentation. > > > All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should go get consensus around that with the wider ASF and get the ASF doc updated. Podling releases are not quite the same as TLP releases, thats why they have the DISCLAIMER and "incubating" naming. I think we should be making it easier for podlings to do releases, if its really necessary then make an audit of the last release a requirement of graduation. ...ant
