On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > we should start a thread about coho. it kind of grew into a tool that I'm > fairly certain only the googlers use and aligning our flows would be a good > thing.
We're pretty much forced to use it to tag now, whether we like it or not. > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> (I was wrong about firefoxos, its just cli thats missing the tag) >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >> > C'mon Joe, its our job to help him. You can take the high road and then >> > Sebb can start affording us the same courtesy. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Seriously, you can't find that yourself? You clearly know nothing >> > > about this project. >> > > >> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:30 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > On 20 February 2014 14:47, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > > >> SCM == ? >> > > > >> > > > Source Code / Software Configuration Management >> > > > >> > > >> Do you mean the git tags? >> > > >> All of the repositories are tagged with the version number of the >> > > release. >> > > >> So, "3.4.0" is the tag. >> > > > >> > > > OK, so where are the repos then please? >> > > > Also, if the tag is not immutable, it would help to have the hash. >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 9:02 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >>> On 18 February 2014 23:26, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >>> > Please review and vote on the Cordova 3.4.0 release. >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > You can find the sample release at >> > http://people.apache.org/~steven/ >> > > >>> >> > > >>> At the risk of being flamed, I am concerned that the VOTE mail does >> > > >>> not include a link to the SCM tag. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Why is this important? >> > > >>> >> > > >>> The ASF releases source files which come with a LICENSE (and >> NOTICE). >> > > >>> It is vital that the release only contains files that are permitted >> > to >> > > >>> be distributed, and we aren't accidentally including files that >> > should >> > > >>> not be distributed. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Equally, it is important that the source release is not missing any >> > > >>> required files. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> The only practical way to check all the files is to compare the >> > source >> > > >>> archive against the tag(s) it is supposed to contain. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> In theory, an automated build process will ensure that the archive >> > > >>> only contains files from the tag, and does not omit any require >> > files. >> > > >>> However, in practice, the archives are built from workspaces that >> > > >>> contain other files (e.g. compilation output). >> > > >>> I know of at least two projects which used standard automated >> > > >>> procedures (Maven), yet their source releases contained files that >> > > >>> should not have been released. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Should there be a complaint, it's important that the PMC can show >> > that >> > > >>> due diligence was done in checking the source archive contents. >> > > >>> This will be easier to prove if the VOTE thread contains details of >> > > >>> the SCM tags from which the archive was built. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> The SCM repo provides traceability of provenance. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> So please can someone provide the SCM tag(s) that were used to >> create >> > > >>> the source release? >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > Voting will go on for 24 hours. >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > Cheers, >> > > >>> > >> > > >>> > -Steve >> > > >>> >> > > >> > >>
