On 18 November 2017 at 18:28, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2017-11-17 22:59 GMT+01:00 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > >> On 17 November 2017 at 21:13, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > 17. 11. 2017 v 12:48, sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: >> > >> >>> On 16 November 2017 at 22:19, Jaroslav Tulach < >> jaroslav.tul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 72h is gone and (I think) we still need one more vote. C'mon it's a >> formality (version 1.5.1 is better than 1.5 and 1.5 was approved). Somebody >> please help us move on. >> >> >> >> Sorry to interrupt, but release approval is never a formality. >> > >> > As expected... I knew my comment would provoke a reaction. Too bad it >> didn't provoke a binding vote... >> > >> >> Each release must be separately approved. >> >> Things can go wrong when assembling the release artifacts. >> >> For example files can be omitted or spurious files can be included >> >> (did the RM use a clean workspace?) >> > >> > The release is prepared by a Jenkins job >> > https://builds.apache.org/view/Incubator%20Projects/job/ >> incubator-netbeans-html4j-release/ >> > The reason is simple - I don't trust myself to not make some stupid >> mistake and thus I automate as much as I can. Thanks to that I can remain >> convinced release 1.5.1 is better than previous version 1.5 and none of >> them contain any spurious files. >> >> Whilst automation helps to reduce errors, it cannot guarantee to eliminate >> them. >> > > Right. That is the reason why there are the human reviews. > > >> Can you prove that there are no bugs in the release script? >> Or any of the libraries that it depends on? >> > > I am not trying to, but: Can you tell me what is the probability that 3rd > human reviewer will find an error when: > > - the script is the same as in previous version > - the previous version was found OK by all human reviewers and approved > - the new version has already been successfully reviewed by two reviewers
That was basically the scenario I mentioned in my previous comment. > I put my bet on the probability being extremely low and called the > remaining review a formality. Looks like I was the lucky winner (this time). My point is that the reviews are vital, and should not be dismissed as a mere formality. That route leads to complacency and potential errors (which is what happened in the example I mentioned). > -jt --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
