On 3/26/2016 2:58 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Andrea Pescetti
[mailto:pesce...@apache.org] Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 10:38
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Releasing the Apache
OpenOffice API plugin for NetBeans
On 20/03/2016 Patricia Shanahan wrote:
The issue is whether it is ASF distributed software, for which
ASF trademarks can appropriately be used. I think it is and
should
continue
to be ASF distributed software.
[ ... ]
2) We go for the full release vote, but this is a serious process,
much more than what is needed for this tool. If one really wants to
do it right, you need a release manager, binding votes, sources in
dist/, GPG signing the way the ASF wants it, old sources preserved
in the ASF archives...
[orcmid]
I'm puzzled about one thing.
There are small Apache projects. I suspect there are more small ones
than large ones.
Yet, making releases does not seem to be that burdensome to those
projects. They have it work and they satisfy the Apache requirements
for releases and the integrity of Apache-released code.
The UNO Tools work strikes me as a commendable way of spinning out
useful releases on the same cadence as small projects manage. (It is
also a small case that sort of demonstrates the process and how it is
achievable.)
Now it is a bit of a problem that this has been a one-committer
effort, and it would be great if supported by more contributors.
Having some community building around this component of AOO would be
valuable.
With that, the release process should become systematic and
sustainability would also be addressed.
Isn't that worth looking into?
+1
We need to train release managers, myself included. It makes sense to me
to practice on smaller, simpler releases before doing a full AOO release.
Patricia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
