On 12/1/13 4:47 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of >>release >> steps are "optional" when they are required. > >Don't get me wrong -- I would actually prefer to make each PPMC member do >the >work for each item. The main rationale behind making the checklist items >"optional" is something else: to avoid adding yet more design pressure >onto >the checklist. Making all items "required" means that we have to >anticipate >all possible edge cases in advance, lest we make it impossible to vote >for a >release which would otherwise pass but gets hung up on a technicality. Just curious: how do you know someone didn't just copy-paste the form with boxes already checked? Can we not make a tool that performs these checks? IMO, make everything required. Let the mentors or other IPMC members grant exceptions if you hit edge cases. This is just an experiment, not new policy that will be in place forever, right? FWIW, I would also drop the "all tests passed". That would make it easier to create a tool that checks everything else. I'm pretty sure our mentors never ran the tests. The PPMC members are probably sufficiently invested in making sure quality is sufficient, one way or another. For Flex, we didn't even have all tests donated to the repo for our first release. I ran the artifacts against the Adobe copy of the tests, but no non-Adobe folks had such an opportunity. -Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
