+1000 Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:31 AM, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi > > I have added text to the wiki page, while I still have it fresh in mind. A > couple of comments (before somebody start > tossing procedures): > - I added a link to the official release guide (thanks to Andrea) > - The 18 steps reflect what I just did + the changes suggested by IPMC > > Disclaimer, this is our version of release management, it follows the > rules, but e.g. the PRE-VOTE is a extra > step, which Peter suggested and that turned out to be very useful. > > Feel free to correct the text, but please do not reduce it to "what the > rulebook says", that will not help us. > > rgds > jan i. > > > On 24 August 2015 at 06:40, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > >> A nice collection. I don't know of anything better. >> >> If you want to see how it goes for other projects, especially podlings, >> subscribe to gene...@incubator.apache.org and there will be plenty of >> discussion. >> >> - Dennis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gabriela Gibson [mailto:gabriela.gib...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 19:57 >> To: dev@corinthia.incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Do we have/want a check list for releases? >> >> Thanks for the hint Dave, here are the links: >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist >> >> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/SigningReleases >> >> there are probably more, but I think this is a good start. >> >> I would suggest that everyone has a little bit of a read over the next >> two weeks and that we then combine ideas into a 'how to' for the next >> release and refine that as we gain more experience. >> >> G >> >> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >>> Here are two ideas that other projects do. >>> >>> (1) Have a target in the build or a script that creates all the release >> artifacts. >>> >>> (2) include Apache RAT to run license checks as part of the build. >>> >>> Look at the emails at the emails from IPMC members on what was done as >> part of the vote. >>> >>> Corinthia will certainly have our own unique differences based what >> artifacts we decide to create. >>> >>> I think there are probably three check lists. >>> >>> (1) Release Packaging - what is being released. >>> >>> (2) Release Manager - how to build, vote and distribute. POI has almost >> all of this as Ant targets. This can make it easy to for anyone to be RM >>> >>> (3) Voter - how to check IP from both the ASF requirements and also the >> project's. We can choose our own standards for quality. The ASF is not >> concerned if the code works, but the project community does care. >>> >>> The incubator has wikis with policies and draft policies I would provide >> the links but I am away from my computer. Perhaps Dennis can provide the >> links. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Aug 23, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Gabriela Gibson < >> gabriela.gib...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Andrea Pescetti <pesce...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snipped some complex procedural discussion> >>>> >>>>> It is not mandatory, but very useful (and I would >>>>> make a recommendation out of it) that when voting on a release one >> doesn't >>>>> simply cast a +1 as such. >>>>> >>>>> I mean, of course a -1 must always be explained, but a +1 should be >>>>> explained too, like this: >>>>> "+1 Built source on Windows, checked README files, checked ALv2 >> headers" >>>>> "+1 Did only a cursory review but I trust you guys on the code" >>>>> and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Remember, the PPMC is assumed (whether this is written somewhere or >> not) to >>>>> give a +1 based on (mainly) technical reasons; the IPMC will take this >> for >>>>> granted and (broadly speaking) mainly look for compliance issues. If >> from >>>>> the set of PPMC votes the Release Manager can understand, for example, >> that >>>>> no testing at all was done on Linux, he may decide to extend the VOTE >> until >>>>> Linux gets proper coverage; if the PPMC members do not supply this >>>>> information, we can't know what was tested and what not. >>>>> >>>>> So, Jan's question was not for me, but in terms of the "proper >> technical >>>>> review" it would help to see VOTE e-mails more informative than a >> simple +1, >>>>> so that one can be sure that all areas are covered. >>>>> >>>>> [Feel free to quote/forward this message in public] >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Andrea. >>>> >>>> This makes me think that perhaps having an official check list to >>>> ensure that nothing gets forgotten and to make the splitting of the >>>> large task that a release is easy and focus resources more efficiently >>>> may be a very useful tool to have. >>>> >>>> What do other projects do in this regard? >>>> >>>> G >>>> -- >>>> Visit my Coding Diary: http://gabriela-gibson.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Visit my Coding Diary: http://gabriela-gibson.blogspot.com/ >> >>
