On Apr 25, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote:
> Had some discussions about this at ApacheCon, and I think it would be > good to formalize this in a release-process doc within coho/docs. Totally agree. I think there is some variation currently in what we understand it means to "+1 a release". An explicit definition would get us all on the same page. > Note that this list doesn't include anything about the *quality* of > the code. This subject was more grey, and is more up to each project > to figure out. > - Some projects go as far as reviewing every commit that has occurred > since the previous commit > > For us, I think it depends on the tools / plugin / platform, but in > general we try to keep master release-worthy at all times, and so > don't need to do much other than ensure the continuous build is green. Keeping master consistently release-ready fits both what I heard from the board at ApacheCon, and how we traditionally do things. > Most of 1-5 can be automated, so I think that's worth doing (e.g. run > coho audit-license-headers as a part of the continuous build, e.g. add > a test that x-refs commit authors with the ICLA page, make "coho > verify-archive" also check archive contents) Yeah, automate everything that is reasonably possible.
