On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:40 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:31 PM Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>> > This is what I'm trying to say with these
I thought about it a little more. That existing top line makes some sense,
but I would say it should link to the ASF release policies and instead say
"See the ASF policies around releases in conjunction with this policy" , so
it would link to [4] (unfortunately that's a bidirectional link, but I
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 9:31 PM Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
> >
> > Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
> >
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
>
> Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
> with information about what is wrong with the release.
> Release managers
This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
with information about what is wrong with the release.
Release managers should consider issues reported as blocking, unless told
otherwise
by
I'm planning to add this, what do you think?
In order for a podling to receive full permission from the IPMC to execute
the release, the release
vote must be held on the incubator general list
and pass based on the http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes;>standard Package
Release
Dale,
Thanks. Before publishing this, I was planning to remove the link on [5].
The policy docs are complete as they stand right now from my point of
view. Since [4] points to [5] I think that's fine assuming the link from
[5] to [3] goes away.
I'm fine with having a link going from [2] to [5]