Marvin Humphrey wrote:
ant elder wrote:
All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be
documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests
its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should
go get consensus around
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
There was a time not long ago, where hardly anything
was documented. Rather it was just common-sense.
So in my opinion, not being in those docs does not mean
that it is not required.
If there are required items which
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The current source release artifacts must be released via the ASF mirroring
system. Download pages must not point directly to the ASF servers; they
must use the mirror CGI scripts Also old releases must not be left on the
mirroring
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net
wrote:
So...
* Ant likes the voting rule change, but is opposed to the checklist.
I'm also opposed to updating the policy document, so will
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also opposed to updating the policy document, so will be voting against
this just for that. Its just an experiment so you don't need to be making a
permanent change to the policy page to try it, especially as its such a
Well sorry but IMHO thats nonsense. The Maven decision was an isolated
incident and didn't change the way all future Incubator policy should
get decided. Insisting that this experiment is done via a change to
the main policy just makes it contentious when it doesn't need to be.
All the complexity
The N word wasn't particularly helpful or constructive, sorry. I do think
the policy page should be kept simple and generic though, so isn't the
place to be describing this experiment.
...ant
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Well sorry but IMHO thats
Just discovered another important aspect of a release that is often overlooked.
The current source release artifacts must be released via the ASF
mirroring system.
Download pages must not point directly to the ASF servers; they must
use the mirror CGI scripts
Also old releases must not be left on
Hi Marvin,
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
I also went another round on the Manifest template and the Release Procedure
section of the guide (not yet committed): https://paste.apache.org/a1ya ...
Looks good to me but why it must be approved by a
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...Next, I will start a PROPOSAL thread, to
re-engage with the rest of the list...
There's been ample space for people to comment on this in the last few
weeks, I'd be clear that we don't expect any core changes we
who are not members, and that's fine IMO.
Yes it is. It is very fine.
I LIKE this process in all aspects except this change in the 3 +1 from the IPMC
rule. Can the VOTE separate the two experiments?
(1) Vote +1/-1 for the Release Verification Checklist experiment
(2) Vote +1/-1 for the 1 +1
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
Another rule is better than my straw man. Marvin really missed my point -
which was 3 IPMC is the way it is done and I don't see a need to change.
I was fooled, yes.
Since there's no compromise that would secure your
Hi Marvin,
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...I've taken a stab at a second draft:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html
Short and sweet, I like it!
I've just added as a plain text file in the release manifest creation section.
I
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...here's a first take for a patch to the policy page which will be
submitted as part of the PROPOSAL...
https://paste.apache.org/4A1I
Looks good to me but I'd ask for a [VOTE] here before committing this.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I've just added as a plain text file in the release manifest creation
section.
I suggest using simpler, more active phrases for a few things at
https://paste.apache.org/fBoJ - feel free to apply or not, it's
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Looks good to me but I'd ask for a [VOTE] here before committing this.
Yes. I'm supplying this patch now for comment from the people who are
following these threads closely. Next, I will start a PROPOSAL
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:34 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
voting against this proposal.
I plan to propose this as an experiment
Well
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
Define lower bar. Do you see any of the review items
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release_manifest.txt as optional?
...Probably all of those could be optional or
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Added to a new usage proposal section at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist - does that
proposal work for you guys?
I
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
...I think two more improvements are needed:
(1) PPMC members should be sure to record the votes of community members who
are not PPMC/committers and have no apache id.
(2) The header should include a reference to
I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
voting against this proposal.
1) This proposal doesn't help podlings with the first release
2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
should more proactively do that) not stay to do more
3) The
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
I wouldn't set this as a goal. It's nice when it happens, but as you
say the goal is for a
On 9 December 2013 22:04, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
I wouldn't
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
I
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
...The point is i think that podlings learn
about the requirements but that doesn't mean we must block releases or
make people jump through hoops to do that learning...
I agree with that, and I don't think we're saying that
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:34 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
voting against this proposal.
I plan to propose this as an experiment which podlings would opt into.
Hopefully, I can persuade you not to oppose such an
On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
On 6 December 2013 20:55, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
On Tue, Dec
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be
documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests
its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote:
We have a lot of pending votes and I see you guys discussing about
rules why not spend your times on having a look at those votes...
If we succeed in changing the system so that my participation doesn't let AWOL
Mentors off
Hi,
Been following the thread and noticed one of the items on the list is:
Issue tracker clean for release version.
Is that really expected? I would expect progress and issue closed since
last release but not everything in the issue tracker addressed. Is it clear
what clean means in this
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote:
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey
mar...@rectangular.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
...
Added to a new usage proposal section at
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
...
Added to a new usage proposal section at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist - does that
proposal work for you guys?
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
...3.6 Release consists of source code only, no binaries
Technically we allow some binary formats like .jpg, .png, etc. in
On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
...3.6 Release consists of source code only,
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
... Second, I'm amused that the commits list item was quietly dropped,
but
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:42 PM, ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Just fyi so I'm not accused of not saying anything - I'm not totally sure
what the intention is for this and I'm all for doing some experiments and
wouldn't get in the way if this is to be tried with a podling, however this
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:17 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2013 13:52, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
...I think managing and keeping such release manifests in svn, at least
for incubating projects, would make the release process much clearer
and easier to
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
... But it is much harder to update an SVN document compared with replying
to an e-mail.
Someone running the VOTE would need to update SVN as each vote comes in.
There would need
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
... But it is much harder to update an SVN document compared with replying
to an e-mail.
Someone running the VOTE would
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...people who review releases work directly on the
svn document, enter their comments there and that counts as a +1
towards the release
Sure, then we need an
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I have just added an alternate proposal there, which avoids repeating
the checklist items to make it easier to review the review.
Having watched how the ASF Board edits the agenda in svn before each monthly
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Which we already have at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/ - podlings are
already supposed to keep their info up to date there.
I suggest putting votes here:
There is a small negative to this process. How do non-committers VOTE on
releases?
This doesn't make me negative, but we ought to have an explanation.
On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Which
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
...In response to Bertrand's proposal at http://s.apache.org/awz, I've
created
a draft release verification checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist ...
Thanks for this!
I have just
On 2 December 2013 13:52, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
...In response to Bertrand's proposal at http://s.apache.org/awz, I've
created
a draft release verification checklist:
http
a draft release verification checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist ...
Thanks for this!
I have just added an alternate proposal there, which avoids repeating
the checklist items to make it easier to review the review.
I think managing and keeping such release
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.
The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
artifacts under review. Expanding it to include unrelated concerns imposes an
unnecessary cost
Marvin,
I applaud your efforts here. If we are going to take PPMC release votes as
binding then we should be sure that these are up to standards. Even if we
don't this is still very valuable.
One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
steps are optional when
On 1 December 2013 19:09, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.
The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
artifacts under
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
steps are optional when they are required.
Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer to make each PPMC member do the
work for each item. The
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you live with this second draft?
I don't understand what this means:
ASF copyright correct in each top-level NOTICE.
Why is it necessary in addition to the following?
Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE correct for each
On 12/1/13 4:47 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of
release
steps are optional when they are required.
Don't get me wrong -- I would
On Dec 1, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher dave2w...@comcast.net wrote:
One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
steps are optional when they are required.
Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Crossley cross...@apache.org wrote:
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
[ ] Incubation disclaimer is present and correct.
There is also the naming of the release, which must have incubating
in its name. As Clutch tries to report, many projects neglect that.
Perhaps
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The NL files also apply to the SCM tree;
Yes, true. Here's a message from Doug Cutting to legal-discuss@apache
on the subject: http://s.apache.org/9r7.
In my view, it's appropriate for someone reviewing a release to comment on
On 29 November 2013 21:00, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The NL files also apply to the SCM tree;
Yes, true. Here's a message from Doug Cutting to legal-discuss@apache
on the subject: http://s.apache.org/9r7.
In
Greets,
In response to Bertrand's proposal at http://s.apache.org/awz, I've created
a draft release verification checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
It should be emphasized that completing a checklist like this at release
points is only one aspect of exercising
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
In response to Bertrand's proposal at http://s.apache.org/awz, I've created
a draft release verification checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
Thnaks for your huge efforts Marvin.
[ ] Incubation disclaimer is present and correct
On 27 November 2013 20:45, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote:
Greets,
In response to Bertrand's proposal at http://s.apache.org/awz, I've created
a draft release verification checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
It should be emphasized that completing
61 matches
Mail list logo
