Question: Is there a rule in "the apache way" defining who can do QA, or is it totally up to the single teams ?
Do we use the "review statistic" in pootle to anything, it seems actually quite clever. Jan. On 30 October 2012 16:17, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/30/12 2:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2012, at 9:03 AM, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> 2012/10/30 Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> On 10/27/12 3:57 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I am still not sure how we can address this but I would really like to > >>> make new translations available as soon as possible. > >>> > >>> What about the idea to prepare official developer language packs based > >>> on the AOO34 branch and where the new translations are already checked > >>> in? If we decided later to release a 3.4.2 because of other critical > >>> security or general bugfixes the new translations becomes included > >>> automatically. > >>> > >>> The new language packs will have the same version number 3.4.1 but are > >>> not officially released and are available via the snapshot page. > >>> > >>> When we reach a state where we have "release" build bots, we can > >>> probably trigger much easier a complete respin with the same product > >>> version but based on a new revision number including the new > translations. > >>> > >>> Juergen > >> > >> +1. I like the idea. We can put on the download page a link to > "additional > >> untested language packs" and add "these language packs are being > prepared > >> for the next AOO version, but you can use them right now" or something > like > >> that. > >> > > > > Even beta releases are still releases from the Apache perspective and > > still require that we go through a release vote. > > > > Why are we trying so hard to avoid this process? It isn't that hard. > > And it is important that we follow the procedures before putting the > > "Apache" label on software we make available to the public. > > I don't see that we try to avoid this process. But with with a certain > level of QA we have to test the new language builds anyway. > > Means in detail we can start with the snapshot builds and can test it. > If we get no complains we can create a new src release (a respin if > possible) where the new translations are included. And we upload only > the new src release and the new language packs. I would be also fine > with uploading full install sets but this is matter of taste and space. > > Juergen > > > > > > -Rob > > > > > >> Regards > >> Ricardo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> -Rob > >>>> > >>>>> -Rob > >>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> Dave > >>> > >>> > >
