+1 to this also. Starting a new thread on the subject of automating #3
@purplecabbage risingj.com On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to this! > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > 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. > >> > >> The best Apache docs for it is: > >> https://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html > >> > >> When we (or at least, members of the PMC), vote on a release, we > >> (should) be saying that we are confident that: > >> 1 - Our sources are properly licenses (aka, RAT or coho > >> audit-license-headers) > >> 2 - We have only compatibly licensed dependencies (and appropriate > NOTICE > >> lines) > >> 3 - Code is made up of commits by individuals that have signed the > >> ICLA (or that are trivial commits) > >> 4 - Archives are properly signed & hashed > >> 5 - Contents of archives match sha1 of what's in the repo > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > > > > I was thinking about this, in light of the recent plugins release, and I > > think that it makes sense for quality concerns to be aired in the > [DISCUSS] > > thread that should be happen before the [VOTE] thread. That is a better > > place for anyone to step up and say "I think there are quality problems > > with component X; let's not release that just yet". > > > > That saves the release manager a lot of time packaging up a release > that's > > going to be downvoted anyway, and then the [VOTE] thread can be more > > efficient. > > > > This isn't saying, of course, that people *can't* downvote a release for > > any reason whatsoever, including quality concerns, but I think it would > > make surprises like that much less likely. > > > > Ian >
