rc2 coming with chinese translations and some other fixes
On 6/17/14 12:35 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This is vote for the second (0.0.2) release of Apache FlexJS.
>
>The release candidate can be found here;
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.0.2/rc1/
>
>Before voting ple
[+1]
On 6/18/14 9:39 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> That said, in future vote threads, I will try to mention that
>> additional testing is encouraged.
>It should be more than encouraged, it should be mandatory!
>
>> Now can we get on to voting?
>If you agree with the above sure.
Well, the polic
On 6/18/14 9:39 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>> That said, in future vote threads, I will try to mention that additional
>> testing is encouraged.
>It should be more than encouraged, it should be mandatory!
>
>> Now can we get on to voting?
>If you agree with the above sure.
Well, the policy say
Hi,
> Back when our mentors were casting the binding votes that allowed us to do
> incubator releases, I believe they ran the minimal steps supported by the
> approval script.
From my experience on the incubator PMC, I'd say that Incubator releases can a
bit more lenient as it is assumed they w
Back when our mentors were casting the binding votes that allowed us to do
incubator releases, I believe they ran the minimal steps supported by the
approval script. If it was good enough for Apache then, I believe it is
good enough now. I made these scripts public so that fellow PMC members,
who
Hi,
IMO there a big gap between what minimally required for a valid release and
what is a good release. A lot of Apache knowledge is not codified into rules or
even guidelines. Please don't be put off testing a release, you certainly
don't have to do everything I put on that list (and there's
Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1
If the items on that list are what we're REQUIRED to check before voting,
than I agree that the script is a bad thing, but it also means all my votes
up to this point have been invalid.
If they are NOT required, I maintain my position that the script is a very
ni
If the items on that list are what we're REQUIRED to check before voting,
than I agree that the script is a bad thing, but it also means all my votes
up to this point have been invalid.
If they are NOT required, I maintain my position that the script is a very
nice utility that allows me to effici
Hi,
> Ok, back into constructive mode: what ISN'T in the script that should be
> there to make it comply with your list of "a lot of other items"?
Off top of my head - there's others.
In general:
- Check KEYS file
- Copyright year in NOTICE is correct
- double check wording in LICENCE and NOTICE
>
> As I have clearly stated I have no issue is the script, it is a useful
> tool. The danger is that it is used for the sole reason for voting +1 on
> releases and that IMO doesn't provide enough PMC oversight. While there a
> minimal set of things requited to vote +1 on a release there are a lot
Hi,
> I resent your threat to block this vote by vetoing the commit of a utility
> script.
It is in no way a "threat" as you put it. With my PMC hat on I have concerns
about this approach and also how it was introduced without review or discussion
or vote. As per our guidelines any PMC member
definitely encourage me to do more voting in the near future.
So my +1 for the guiadance script.
Chris
Von: Erik de Bruin
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Juni 2014 11:02
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Apache FlexJS 0.0.2 RC1
Weird. We must be running differe
Weird. We must be running different scripts.
The one I'm looking at just steps me through the process, asking for my
input when needed to make sure I have done my due diligence. It doesn't
just automatically run through the steps before exiting with: "all seems
well, please vote +1".
Nor does it
Hi,
> Did you actually look at the script and run it?
Yes was the first thing I did - hence my concerns.
Justin
Did you actually look at the script and run it?
It's like a wizard that steps you through the process rather than an
automation of the process itself. It doesn't try take any responsibility
away from the voter, quite the opposite actually: it makes sure the voter
doesn't skip any part of the proce
Hi,
> Meanwhile, using the script or otherwise, can we vote on these packages?
Currently I'm considering if I should the veto the checkin(s) or not.
- This approach was not discussed on the mailing list before being introduced
- I'm not convinced that the script is enough to provide proper PMC ov
On 6/17/14 2:46 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>>> At the very least this should of been discussed (and perhaps VOTEed on)
>>> before being implemented in 2 releases.
>> I don't think there is anything to discuss and vote on as long as it
>> doesn't violate policy. Nobody has to use it. I'
Hi,
>> At the very least this should of been discussed (and perhaps VOTEed on)
>> before being implemented in 2 releases.
> I don't think there is anything to discuss and vote on as long as it
> doesn't violate policy. Nobody has to use it. I'm just offering it up as
> a convenience.
It has alr
Hi,
Sorry Peter again didn't mean to single you out, just trying to illustrate a
point.
> I think tools which make it easier to validate will encourage people to
> participate more.
Again I agree here, if it gets people looking at released and understanding the
process that great. But PMC bindi
I ran the script twice; the first to verify that it worked and on the
second run, read every word that it produced. Some of it I didn't know the
rightness or wrongness of the statements, so that, to me, makes my vote
not quite as valid. But then I would imagine that most people who vote are
not 100
On 6/17/14 10:29 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and
>> reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the
>>output
>> of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the
>> determination o
Hi,
> I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and
> reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the output
> of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the
> determination of the correctness of LICENSE and NOTICE and the headers
I followed these threads as they happened. I have not gone back and
reviewed them, but my takeaway was this: A PMC cannot not use the output
of a tool to determine the correctness of a release package because the
determination of the correctness of LICENSE and NOTICE and the headers
cannot be inf
>
> 100% agree and that a useful and good thing, but that does not make them
> legal releases, and IMO it exposes the PMC (and thus the board) to greater
> risk.
>
Yeah, this has to stop. We cannot avoid doing 'useful and good things'
simply because some bored lawyer hypothesised there might be an
Hi,
> Link to the discussion, please?
There also the community building and social aspects of a release [1] (from the
same thread), ie "Community over code".
Thanks,
Justin
1.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3cce4928b9-22d5-456c-817c-85fae66ac...@jagun
Hi,
> It seems to me that a script provides consistency,
> completeness and ease of use, allowing more people to participate in the
> testing and voting process.
100% agree and that a useful and good thing, but that does not make them legal
releases, and IMO it exposes the PMC (and thus the boar
On 17/06/14 10:05, Erik de Bruin wrote:
And what is considered "manually"? Do I have to manually type commands into
the terminal in order to comply? Is an ant script a script? Why are scripts
considered "bad"? It seems to me that a script provides consistency,
completeness and ease of use, allowi
HI,
> Link to the discussion, please?
Been several - they are quite long - the 3rd one is probably the most relevant.
1.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201405.mbox/%3cCAAS6=7jTVyaDhwepAqob-=83dxj-uams9gyg5j5xdhyybva...@mail.gmail.com%3e
2.http://mail-archives.apache.o
>
> this is against Apache policy - releases must be manually checked
That seems oddly backwards for an organisation that exists to create,
support and evangelise bit collections that automate things...
And what is considered "manually"? Do I have to manually type commands into
the terminal in o
On Jun 17, 2014 12:51 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > There is an ant script that automates the common steps to validate a
> > release. Instead of individually downloading the package and signature
> > files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
> > 1) create an empty folder,
> > 2) download
Hi,
> There is an ant script that automates the common steps to validate a
> release. Instead of individually downloading the package and signature
> files, unzipping, etc, you can instead:
> 1) create an empty folder,
> 2) download into that folder this file:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist
Hi,
This is vote for the second (0.0.2) release of Apache FlexJS.
The release candidate can be found here;
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/flex/flexjs/0.0.2/rc1/
Before voting please review the section,"What are the ASF requirements on
approving a release?", at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/
32 matches
Mail list logo
