Hi, On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 9:19 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > ...The process is described here [1] which references [2] and > best practise described here [3]...
Apart from not having vetoes on release votes, the only things that the ASF requires about releases are captured in this excerpt from [1], which defines several of the terms user later on the same page: > An Apache release is a set of valid , signed , artifacts, voted on by > the appropriate PMC and distributed on the ASF's official > release infrastructure [3] in particular is detailed recommendations for podlings during incubation, I wouldn't put too much weight on it. PMCs are free to handle the steps that allow them to fulfill the above requirements in any way they see fit. The simpler the better IMO and it's also fine for different release managers to work differently, from the ASF's point of view. > ...With few PMC members voting a single -1 or indication that that how > someone will vote can basically acts as a veto.... Does this PMC have trouble getting 4 people voting on a release? If you get 4 votes, a -1 is definitely not a veto as per http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval If you guys have trouble getting 4 voters, something's wrong. Either there's not enough active PMC members, or people think voting +1 on a release means they agree to have their head cut off if a bug is found in it later. That's not the case, by far. Voting +1 on a release means you think publishing it is progress towards your goals, and to the best of your knowledge you think it complies with the above requirements. -Bertrand > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release-publishing.html > 2. http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > 3. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >
