Hi Avik I'd like to check with other Apache projects to find out what they do for hot fixes.
"A binding release vote of the PMC is the critical gating step in the release process. Without such a vote, the release is just a set of files prepared by an individual. After such a vote, it is a formal offering of the ASF, backed by the "full faith and credit" of the Foundation." https://infra.apache.org/release-publishing.html see also: https://blogs.apache.org/comdev/entry/how_apache_projects_use_consensus There is no "timeout" based release. Then we get to the norms of this group. It feels important that the most active devs have the time to comment and review the changelog, even if they are not on the PMC. 72 hrs may not be enough. And, as I understand it, the two weeks time frame is a sort of *norm* within Apache to allow people to take the necessary careful steps - run regression tests(?) to ensure that the new release or hotfix is free from defects. So, to your proposal - I would agree that in some cases, like the hotfixes where we have some very active devs and everyone is essentially waiting for the two weeks to close, that this is not that useful. I do agree that we should have a faster process for an urgent hotfix as this is intended to fix something missed during the release process. Some other options? e.g. 5 PMC votes and 72 hrs 3 PMC votes and 6 days Thanks @[email protected] <[email protected]> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:58 AM Avik Ganguly <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Devs & Non-Devs, > > I would like your opinion on the below points for hot fix releases :- > > - Release discussion after cutting a branch (usually this thing is 2 > weeks open in mailing lists for feedback). Can we do something about this > to cut it down to as little time as possible? I would like to propose a day > or 3 votes on whether the discussion is adequate for cutting a release. > - Release voting (usual rules, 3 PMC votes or 72 hours). If the > release discussion is passing through votes rather than timeout, would it > make sense in removing this step as redundant or would it be against Apache > policy? > > With best regards, > Avik Ganguly. > > Disclaimer: > > Privileged & confidential information is contained in this message > (including all attachments). If you are not an intended recipient of this > message, please destroy this message immediately and kindly notify > the sender by reply e-mail. Any unauthorised use or dissemination of this > message in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, is strictly > prohibited. This e-mail, including all attachments hereto, (i) is for > discussion purposes only and shall not be deemed or construed to be a > professional opinion unless expressly stated otherwise, and (ii) is not > intended, written or sent to be used, and cannot and shall not be used, for > any unlawful purpose. This communication, including any attachments, may > not be free of viruses, interceptions or interference, and may not be > compatible with your systems. You should carry out your own virus checks > before opening any attachment to this e-mail. The sender of this e-mail and > *Fynarfin Tech Private Limited* shall not be liable for any damage that > you may sustain as a result of viruses, incompleteness of this message, a > delay in receipt of this message or computer problems experienced. >
