Duncan Findlay writes: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:22:12PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote: > > should we just not bother with votes for prereleases? > > > To be honest, I can't see the harm in accidentally pushing a prerelease > > tarball at the wrong time -- and this is the second 3.2.0-preX that isn't > > garnering votes, so clearly the process is getting in the way here. :( > > > (Votes for "official" full releases, of course, would still be necessary) > > I think by ASF policy, we need a vote.
Actually no, I don't think so. http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html only discusses voting requirements for "package releases" -- no mention of pre-releases or even RC packages. It was only our intepretation ( http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy ) that requires votes on a PR tarball. > That said, right now a +1 vote means: > > a) I think we should have a pre-release now. > b) The tarballs presented are well constructed, work well, etc and > I've tested them. > > I think if we agree that a +1 vote for pre-release only implies a) > then we won't have the issue of not getting votes. I haven't had time > to test the tarballs, so I haven't voted, but I'm +1 on the idea of a > pre-release. (i.e. +1 to part a) above). Good ;) To be honest, I think the side-effects of failed votes (delays, morale, etc.) are *much* worse than the occasional failing "make test" run in a pre-release. --j.
