Sam Ruby wrote:
> Meanwhile, release processes in Apache are not subject to a veto. While
> the precise rules can be tailored, the overall principles are that a
> release requires a simple majority of committers that choose to vote, and
> are generally subject to an absolute minimum number of +1 votes required
> (typically three).
And then the release is built and placed in < /builds/{subproject} >.
For now, I believe the Commons only wants to be responsible for packages
placed in a
< /builds/commons >
folder, and would also want to be responsible for all the packages
placed in that folder ;-)
Which is to say, the Commons committers are *not* asking for anything
like a < /builds/sandbox > folder. I believe most of us do not even want
non-committers to have access to the sandbox.
Meanwhile, it's possible that Costin might like a < /builds/agora >
folder at some point, for components he builds in the shared CVS in
cooperation with other subprojects, whose release has been approved by
those subprojects in the usual way.
But requesting that folder is outside the scope of this proposal. We are
simply trying to make it clear that the shared CVS is *not* a
distribution point. If another subproject, or initiative, uses the
shared CVS, they have to release the code using their own mechanism.
-Ted.
