On Mar 1, 2016 12:43, "Thorsten Schöning" <tschoen...@am-soft.de> wrote: > > Guten Tag William A Rowe Jr, > am Dienstag, 1. März 2016 um 18:28 schrieben Sie: > > > If there are three+ active project members volunteering to review and > > cast up/down votes on release candidates[...] > > I'm willing to vote, but reviewing is a more interesting part, because > I mainly use a custom Windows environment and therefore would first > need a Linux build env for the actual release candidate. Maybe I find > some hours to have a look at such at the weekend... > > Or isn't it necessary that a voter is able to build on the platform of > others voters/reviewers? Because I already use the trunk in production > software, it's just build using a custom procedure.
Consider that each project member evaluates the candidate from their own lens. Some might build using all the build schemas, others test on one platform alone. Some are more focused on docs, perhaps one will pay extra attention to the package gpg signatures. We trust the committee and all project members ensure the IP provenance, that commits were offered by their author or correctly attributed and properly licensed or sublicensed under the Apache License. A release vote tells the board that at least three committers are aware of no IP infringement, watching the daily activity of the project. The release vote tells the world that this is the product of the ASF, not simply one or more committers, and tells the world this is, in the project's opinion, the best available version of that software at the time of the release. Not that it necessarily free of any and all defect. How individuals make that determination can and should be unique from their perspective. I think of it as 'do I find a reason -not- to release this package?' When I don't see such an issue, my vote is +1. > > If there is still > > not a sufficient community at present, this might be better at > > labs.apache.org[...] > > I find it interesting that you have something like labs with sentences > like the following: > > > [...]without the burden of community building. > > But seem to lack something more focused on general maintenance? Attic > is read only, incubator is to prove active development including > community building and after graduation you need to stay "active", > else you go back to incubator because of a new community or to the > attic. This doesn't sound that there's any room for people just > providing some kind of support for current user base. > > Or am I missing something? Exactly... It is a place to continue development while attempting to attract a community to that work. I don't see this as the ideal, only as a last resort to continue the effort without releases. The fact that the logging PMC had no interest in including its contributors was a shame, let's work to avoid such mistakes in the future, and build an effective ppmc.
