Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results - that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries going out are good. More than likely 90% of the time everyone just votes yes or no and trusts that the person managing the release knows what they are doing. .....but these are small points. Still, they do point to the voting process being meaningless other than all of the PMC's putting their names on it if it should go poorly. (though in a true team sort of mindset you'd think that this would always be the case with / without votes / other processes...)
Automation is good. Esp. if it lets us opt to always trust committer X managing a release once and let a diligent little script do everything else for else without any intervention. That would be great and would bring me back to where I already was. ;) On 3/19/07, Nathan Bubna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snipped>
the actual bits that are distributed as an officially endorsed release do not have the luxury of diffs sent to the development lists, nor are they easily controlled from a central location. the releases are extensively mirrored by servers all over the place. releases are nigh impossible to recall. thus, with the broader audience, the consequences for problems are greatly magnified and are not easily remedied.
<snipped> -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry/Dojo team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
