On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:07 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> ... it would probably allow to skip the release process and voting, since >>> we would merely be adding 3-5 binary artifacts (built for different >>> platforms). >> >> It is an interesting question if we should only vote for source releases. >> Certainly these are the only "official" release. I think that the practice >> is to vote for binary packages as well. Clearly those have a different bar. >> It is worth discussing, but I am inclined to think that we do need to VOTE >> on these packages, but in this case we are voting at a certain level of >> trust for the packager and translations. >> > > But the point is we need to release the source that the binaries > depend on, where that source is from this project. > > It would be one thing if we were just releasing a new platform port of > existing source packages. But we're not. > > We're talking about new translations resources, where such resources > are in SVN and are required as part of the build process in order to > build the localized binaries. No downstream consumer of the source > will be able to build these localizations without having access to the > translated resources. Therefore these resources should be reviewed, > voted on and released. > > Remember, the translations are non-trivial creative works, > translations of not only UI strings, but larger text passages from the > help files. They are under copyright and made available under > license. So we need to do our due diligence via the release process > before we distribute such materials. >
Should say, "before we distribute such materials in source OR source and binary form". The issues are the same. Remember, the source package is canonical. I'm surprised to hear talk now of releasing only binaries. -Rob > -Rob > >> Regards, >> Dave
