On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:14 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would be a lot better to use RC1 RC2 etc initially, and copy the > successful tag to the GA tag. >
+1 ! :) Gary > > On 25 June 2013 19:38, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > Yeah - I agree with this. I rename them to rc1, rc2, etc after a failed > release vote instead of deleting them. > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Ralph Goers < > ralph.go...@dslextreme.com>wrote: > >> > >>> Again I have to disagree. The release manager will send an email > closing > >>> the prior release. At this point all the prior release artifacts are > junk > >>> even if they still exist. At some point the release manager will > delete > >>> the tag and rerun the release. > >> > >> > >> That's a no-no IMO. Tags that have been voted on should never be > deleted. > >> > >> Gary > >> > >> > >> > >>> At this point the tag is still junk to everyone else because they have > no > >>> idea what the RM is doing - so they shouldn't be making assumptions > about > >>> non-released tags. Once he sends the email though the tag will be > valid. > >>> Sure having the revision number helps but unless the RM completely > screws > >>> up the tag should be sufficient. > >>> > >>> Ralph > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:58 AM, Fred Cooke wrote: > >>> > >>>> Not really, no. The developer may have re-spun it again and be about > to > >>>> email again. You have no idea what you're looking at unless you know > the > >>>> revision. SVN will die off within a decade and this discussion will > >>> become > >>>> critical. Better to figure out how to support proper techniques now, > >>> rather > >>>> than wait until forced to. > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:52 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 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
