Unsubscribe On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, 00:01 Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 3, 2026, at 11:18 AM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dave, > > > > Are there any public resources describing ATR? ATR sounds interesting, > but the link you sent requires me to log in with my Apache ID and 2FA. I > have not taken the time to set up 2FA, and some of our readers may not have > an Apache ID. > > These pages are open: > 1. https://releases.apache.org/docs/ - this is a work in progress. > 2. https://tooling.apache.org/trusted-releases.html - this is an overview > of what to configure to start. > > We will be at C/C Glasgow with an ATR session and workshop on Monday and a > Tooling hackathon Tuesday morning for onboarding PMCs and working on Docs. > > Best, > Dave > > > > > Julian > > > > > >> On Sep 3, 2026, at 10:59 AM, Dave Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 3, 2026, at 9:40 AM, Xuanwo <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I support the concurrent votes as a way to speed up the release > process for incubator projects. > >>> > >>> Based on my experience with incubator projects, it's much better to be > rejected on the first day by the IPMC than to pass the PPMC's vote and then > wait three days only to have the release rejected by the IPMC. Concurrent > voting also allows the IPMC to participate earlier in the release process. > >> > >> I would like to recommend that podlings try a release using Apache > Trusted Releases Beta at https://releases.apache.org/. This system will > check for many of the problems that are found in a release vote prior to > starting the release process. The release manager can replace packages > until the checks pass. > >> > >> ATR currently does sequential voting periods, but if the IPMC approves > the concurrent option then we can make changes to enable it as a > configuration choice. > >> > >> Best, > >> Dave > >> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, at 00:22, tison wrote: > >>>> The following comments are integrated: > >>>> > >>>> 1. (David & Justin; change the order) > >>>>> The PPMC vote and the Incubator PMC vote MAY be conducted > sequentially or, > >>>> at the Podling's discretion, concurrently. > >>>> > >>>> 2. (Dave; individuals in both groups) > >>>>> The individuals counted toward these two requirements need not be > >>>> distinct. An individual who is both a PPMC member and an Incubator PMC > >>>> member, including a Podling mentor, may be counted toward both > requirements. > >>>>> > >>>>> Only votes from Incubator PMC members are binding for ASF release > >>>> approval. > >>>> > >>>>> With concurrent votes, the IPMC ends up reviewing RCs the PPMC would > have > >>>> rejected anyway, and IPMC time is the one thing we're short of. > >>>> > >>>> IPMC members can choose to review only releases that have a PPMC vote > >>>> result. It's up to certain IPMC members' preferences. > >>>> > >>>> From another viewpoint, Fesod and Seata may identify those issues > earlier > >>>> with the help of an IPMC member, shortening their total release time. > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> tison. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Justin Mclean <[email protected]> 于2026年9月4日周五 00:09写道： > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not against concurrent votes, but I've one concern and a few > wording > >>>>> changes. > >>>>> > >>>>> The concern is that this puts more work on the IPMC. At the moment, > the > >>>>> PPMC vote filters out RCs with issues before they reach general@. > With > >>>>> concurrent votes, the IPMC ends up reviewing RCs the PPMC would have > >>>>> rejected anyway, and IPMC time is the one thing we're short of. That > on its > >>>>> own may be reason enough not to do this. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we do go ahead, both votes will still run for 72 hours, and both > will > >>>>> be closed with a result before anything is published. > >>>>> > >>>>> The general@ vote email should still link to the dev@ vote thread > so IPMC > >>>>> members can see it and check the tally. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd put sequential first and say it's the default. Concurrent should > be > >>>>> something a podling chooses, as an exception, not the expectation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note this changes pages/policy/incubation.ad, which is Incubator > policy, > >>>>> so it needs an IPMC vote to adopt once the wording is settled. > >>>>> > >>>>> Regarding JB's suggestion of sending one thread to both lists, I'd > rather > >>>>> not. Replies end up on one list or the other, and the tally gets > messy. Two > >>>>> threads running at the same time give the same result without that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> Justin > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Xuanwo > >>> > >>> https://xuanwo.io/ > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
