For record keeping purposes, the SVN revision + tag combo is better because some RM's have inadvertently reused RC tags in the past. As Sebb pointed out tags are mutable.
Gary On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote: > I disagree that the revision is required. I know that the RM is going to > recreate the tag with each release candidate. Therefore, so long as I > refetch that tag for every release vote I can be confident that I am > reviewing the release contents. > > Ralph > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 9:52 AM, sebb wrote: > > > The mission of the ASF is to release software as source, and to ensure > > that the released source is available under the Apache Licence. > > > > Before a release can be approved it must be voted on by the PMC. > > The review process needs to establish that the proposed source release > > meets those aims. > > > > It's all but impossible for reviewers to examine every single file in > > a source archive to determine if it meets the criteria. > > And it's not unknown for spurious files to creep into a release > > (perhaps from a stale workspace - are releases always built from a > > fresh checkout of the tag?) > > > > However, PMCs are also required to check what is added to the SCM > > (SVN/Git) to make sure it meets the required license criteria. > > This is done on an ongoing basis as part of reviewing check-ins and > > accepting new contributions. > > So provided that all the files in the source release are also present > > in SCM, the PMC can be reasonably sure that the source release meets > > the ASF criteria. > > > > Without having the SCM as a database of validated files, there are far > > too many files in the average source archive to check individually. > > And how would one check their provenance? The obvious way is to > > compare them with the entries in SCM. > > > > Therefore, I contend that a release vote does not make sense without > > the SCM tag. > > In the case of SVN, since tags are not immutable, the vote e-mail also > > needs the revision. > > > > Whether every reviewer actually checks the source archive against SCM > > is another matter. > > But if the required SCM information is not present, it would be > > difficult to argue that the RM had provided sufficient information for > > a valid review to take place. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > -- E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
