On Dec 21, 2006, at 1:50 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Dec 21, 2006, at 6:46 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
It was something Roy said recently on Incubator general that
enlightened.
On Dec 7, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
FYI, traditionally, all release votes are for the source code
package and
only that package. Once the source code version is set in stone,
binaries
and assorted other release artifacts can be generated by individual
committers without a vote if the group trusts them to do so and they
have a signed key. Some groups might require a vote on binaries
as well,
but the ASF only requires a vote on the source.
I like voting on binaries for most our stuff as our build is
massively complex. But in this case I figured I'd give the "do you
trust me to build/publish" angle a try as these are tiny little
jars that aren't complicated and it's way easier to just run the
maven publish command on them after the vote than it is to create a
"staging" build for each one and figuring out a non-trivial way to
publish them later.
-David
Thanks...this was the missing context for me. I spect I'm not the
only one who doesn't hang on the incubator thread so this helps.
I'm confused about Roy's comments as there are specific requirements
for including legal stuff in the binaries. Sounds like he is
advocating everyone building their own copy and validating it.
Since this is a change in process it would be good to outline how you
propose it working for the benefit of the many on the list that don't
have the benefit of your thinking apart from the reference above.
I would very much like to see us change the process and the specs are
probably a really good place to start. I'm +1 for changing the
process. I would very much like to get the new process documented so
that you don't end up becoming the release dog and have everyone
making up a new way each time which is currently where we are at.
Other people's thoughts?
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
