Re: Approving flawed release candidates

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > While I agree with what both John and Marvin are saying, the key word here > is “discretion”. +1 for IPMC members applying discretion. I've submitted some suggestions which I hope other IPMC members will consider, and

Re: Approving flawed release candidates

While I agree with what both John and Marvin are saying, the key word here is “discretion”. Obviously the IPMC shouldn’t give podlings too hard a time (we all know how difficult and time consuming it is to go through a cycle consisting of a release candidate and TWO votes, and the mechanics of

Re: Approving flawed release candidates

Hi Marvin, I don't think there's anything you're stating here that isn't in accordance to processes we have been following. If I look at the current Traffic Control vote, the problems I see are: - Assertion from the podling that they fixed the release, and votes from mentors indicating they

Approving flawed release candidates

Greets, We take pains to advise downstream consumers that podling releases are "incubating" because they may not live up to the standards expected of Apache TLPs -- whether that is because the community is not mature, because the release is not fully compliant with ASF policies, or what have you.