Hi James,
We can debate this off the vote thread if you prefer, but a quick answer
would be that the PMC approves a release. It has absolutely no relation
with who builds it.
(check) the release process requires code modifications (pom.xml) it
MUST be performed by a committer.
(check) artifacts MUST be digitally signed (PGP) key.
(check) Key MUST be recorded in the repository (KEYS)
(check) Key SHOULD be published in a public key store
(check) Key SHOULD be signed by another ASFer
The only awkward aspect is that if the release manager is not a PMC
member, he has a non-binding vote on his own release. So if a community
trusts a committer to build a legally binding release, it probably
trusts him to provide project oversight. That's one way to build merit
to become a PMC member. So I don't see anything improper to prompt a
*negative* zero.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 01/19/2015 03:48 PM, James Carman wrote:
Hadrian,
I'm not inventing anything and I didn't say it was a rule, only my
preference:
"Note that the PMC is responsible for all artifacts in their distribution
directory, which is a subdirectory of www.apache.org/dist/ ; and all
artifacts placed in their directory must be signed by a committer,
preferably by a PMC member. It is also necessary for the PMC to ensure that
the source package is sufficient to build any binary artifacts associated
with the release."
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
On Monday, January 19, 2015, Hadrian Zbarcea <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 (binding)
Looks good, solid release, improvement from 5.10.0. Comments:
* sigs, legal files, look good
* build from source looks good (DbRestartJDBCQueueMasterSlaveLeaseQuiesceTest
failed, passed on second run)
* smoke test in karaf looks good
* this is actually the 4th attempt
* @James: are we inventing new rules?
Somebody, I think Dejan, suggested we should have automated builds on the
maintenance branches to spot regressions earlier. Great suggestion, not
sure if we should do it for 5.10.x, but definitely for 5.11.x.
@Art, great work! This was your first release at ASF if I am not mistaken,
right?
Cheers,
Hadrian
On 01/15/2015 12:23 PM, James Carman wrote:
-0, I would prefer to see the releases signed by a PMC member.
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:10 PM, artnaseef <[email protected]> wrote:
The release candidate for the activemq 5.10.1 release is now built and
ready
for a vote.
This release comes with 34 fixes and 1 administrative jira entry.
Please see the list of jira entries here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=fixVersion%
20%3D%205.10.1%20AND%20project%20%3D%20AMQ
You can get binary distributions here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
orgapacheactivemq-1013/org/apache/activemq/apache-activemq/5.10.1/
Source archives are here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
orgapacheactivemq-1013/org/apache/activemq/activemq-parent/5.10.1/
Maven2 repository is here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
orgapacheactivemq-1013/
Source tag:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=activemq.git;a=commit;h=
8938d14d434447193b02ba635606aa0fb7a80353
NOTE: I used Hadrian's prior thread as a template (thank you Hadrian).
--
View this message in context: http://activemq.2283324.n4.
nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Apache-ActiveMQ-5-10-1-3rd-
attempt-tp4689959.html
Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
