Dave@ thanks for you offer. Can you help me understand one things about releases and IPMC.
I have understood the task of the IPMC is to control the validity of the release (LICENSE, IP clearance etc) and not the quality (bad documentation etc), but it seems on general@ quality is often discussed ? can e.g. too little documentation be a release blocker ? thanks in advance. rgds jan i. On 30 July 2015 at 18:26, Gabriela Gibson <gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> wrote: > I also think that doing this step whilst the project is still relatively > compact is a very good move. > > +1 > > G > On 30 Jul 2015 17:06, "Dave Fisher" <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Good plan. I will do my best to help. If we have 3 IPMC +1 from the > > podling then the IPMC part is less of a PITA. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > On Jul 30, 2015, at 7:21 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > Traditionally cutting the first apache release for a podling is one big > > > PITA, therefore > > > I propose we get started. > > > > > > I propose we make release 0.1 consisting of > > > - docFormats (the library only with the OOXML filter) > > > - dfTest (the main test utility) > > > - dfUtil (the conversion utility) > > > > > > We have a lot to learn here, about the files LICENSES and NOTICE and > > about > > > how to > > > handle release candidates and the final release, therefore I propose to > > > include the > > > "stable" parts. It can be argued that version 0.1 is not very useful > for > > a > > > end-user, which > > > might be right, but it helps us get the release framework up and > running. > > > > > > Once we have 0.1 through the needle of IPMC, version 0.2 can focus a > lot > > > more on the > > > technical content. > > > > > > The steps we have to pass (I have surely forgotten a number) are: > > > - Make a branch (stable_0.1) that only contains what we intent to > release > > > - Make it work (adapt CMake files etc) > > > - Correct LICENSES and NOTICE > > > - Prepare a release candidate (upload source with SHA5 to somewhere on > > dist) > > > - Vote on the release (min. 3 +1 NO -1) > > > - Ask IPMC to check the release and have them vote on it > > > this is the needle, they tend to find things we have not thought > about, > > > but Justin (he is one of the best release checkers in incubators) > > earlier > > > promised > > > me to do a pre-check so we avoid the normal errors. > > > - When the vote finally passes, move the source to the release part of > > dist. > > > - Congratulate each other with work well done. > > > > > > If we agree on the content and the idea of cutting a release, I > volunteer > > > to do the work and > > > of course write about every step in here (and on the wiki), so we all > > learn > > > from the experience. > > > I do however need help from e.g. Dave, with some of the specialties. > > > > > > Following the suggestion from Dave, Let us discuss this until August > 7th, > > > and then see > > > if we have reached consensus. > > > > > > Comments ? > > > > > > rgds > > > jan i. > > >
