On 04/10/2014 jan i wrote:
Thanks jürgen for the work you have done.
Sure, thanks Juergen for being a great, reliable and patient release manager during these years.
In other words, I strongly believe we have to depend on non-apache hardware to produce a major part of the binaries. A new release manager should provide or have access to several VMs in order to cut the release. It has always looked as if Jürgen had direct or indirect access to all the platforms needed.
Well, this is a thing we must change. Ideally, we must be able to produce all binaries at Apache for the next release. We are now depending on individual developers providing their own systems, but this won't work for other ongoing activities too (like signing releases). If you look at the Infra list recent discussions, it seems we will be able to get our hands on suitable Mac hardware soon.
So in short: a new release is not going to happen before we have fixed the release process. Part of this fix can be very challenging, like bringing all building activities to Apache hardware. But we shouldn't expect that what a release manager needs NOW is valid for the NEXT release.
A release manager does not need to be PMC, but only the PMC have binding votes for a release......this can theoritically lead to a situation where the vote ends with only +1, but the release manager gives a non-binding -1. If nothing else that should lead to a funny board report.
This is a theoretical case. The Release Manager is trusted. If I receive a -1 from the Release Manager, I'll immediately change my +1 vote to a -1 and so will do other PMC members. Let's focus on concrete discussions.
Ps. it seems markmail does not support inline responses, or am I doing something wrong ?
I'll be BCCing you in my responses to your messages so at least we don't break threads.
Regards, Andrea. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
