On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:25 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Jim, you’re re-iterating the premise of my question. In the context of my > question, it doesn’t matter what these things are called. But we need to > know how reviewers are to handle them. > > Since I asked the original question, I have found the following policy[1]: > > > COMPILED PACKAGES > > > > The Apache Software Foundation produces open source software. All > > releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make > > changes to the software being released. > > > > As a convenience to users that might not have the appropriate tools to > > build a compiled version of the source, binary/bytecode packages MAY > > be distributed alongside official Apache releases. In all such cases, the > > binary/bytecode package MUST have the same version number as the > > source release and MUST only add binary/bytecode files that are the > > result of compiling that version of the source code release and its > > dependencies. > > This policy clarifies what these things may contain. I still need > clarification on what is the responsibility of a reviewer. It has been repeated several times already. There is no such thing as "reviewer" since these are not official releases. So they certainly shouldn't be voted upon. They are just some binaries hanging out on our server. I propose: > > 1. Reviewers have no way to verify the contents of the binaries and > therefore they have to trust that the release manager has built them > according to the documented release process. > And this is exactly why they are unofficial. -g
