Re: Call for release signatures
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:07:15AM -0400, Nathan Hartman wrote: > > We should have enough signatures according to ASF rules (need 3 signatures > > by PMC members), but not for our own cross-platform testing requirements > > (there is only one windows signature so far). > > > > Should we fail to meet our own higher standard, we can fall back on ASF > > rules, meaning we could release with the signatures we have available now. > > > > While not required this time around, the RM could in principle count > > their own signature against the 3 required by ASF. > > > > I don't mean to discourage further testing/signing; if you can test these > > releases on Windows or other platforms which have not yet been covered in > > some way, this would be very welcome. Testing from people outside the PMC > > is also always welcome, even though a signature won't be useful in this > > case. > > > > Cheers, > > Stefan > > > I'm a little bit confused... Per HACKING we need three +1 votes from PMC > members, at least one of which is for each platform (Windows and Unix). We > have already met this requirement for both 1.14.2 and 1.10.8, haven't we? Oh, so the rules have been updated? Sorry for the confusion. I still had the old rules in mind, which required 3 votes for each *nix and windows.
Re: Call for release signatures
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 10:07 AM Nathan Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:49 AM Stefan Sperling wrote: >> >> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:37:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: >> > Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and >> > available for testing and signatures. Please try to get them completed >> > by this Sunday. >> > >> > The plan is to make the release available on Tuesday April 12. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > Mark >> > >> >> We should have enough signatures according to ASF rules (need 3 signatures >> by PMC members), but not for our own cross-platform testing requirements >> (there is only one windows signature so far). >> >> Should we fail to meet our own higher standard, we can fall back on ASF >> rules, meaning we could release with the signatures we have available now. >> >> While not required this time around, the RM could in principle count >> their own signature against the 3 required by ASF. >> >> I don't mean to discourage further testing/signing; if you can test these >> releases on Windows or other platforms which have not yet been covered in >> some way, this would be very welcome. Testing from people outside the PMC >> is also always welcome, even though a signature won't be useful in this case. >> >> Cheers, >> Stefan > > I'm a little bit confused... Per HACKING we need three +1 votes from PMC > members, at least one of which is for each platform (Windows and Unix). We > have already met this requirement for both 1.14.2 and 1.10.8, haven't we? > > Nevertheless I agree it is good to have additional testing and signatures, > for both platforms, and interested community members can and should feel free > to participate. Sorry for the confusion I was not implying we *need* more signatures, it was as you said a call for anyone who wants to sign the release to get it submitted by this Sunday. Mark
Re: Call for release signatures
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:49 AM Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:37:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > > Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and > > available for testing and signatures. Please try to get them completed > > by this Sunday. > > > > The plan is to make the release available on Tuesday April 12. > > > > Thanks > > > > Mark > > > > We should have enough signatures according to ASF rules (need 3 signatures > by PMC members), but not for our own cross-platform testing requirements > (there is only one windows signature so far). > > Should we fail to meet our own higher standard, we can fall back on ASF > rules, meaning we could release with the signatures we have available now. > > While not required this time around, the RM could in principle count > their own signature against the 3 required by ASF. > > I don't mean to discourage further testing/signing; if you can test these > releases on Windows or other platforms which have not yet been covered in > some way, this would be very welcome. Testing from people outside the PMC > is also always welcome, even though a signature won't be useful in this > case. > > Cheers, > Stefan > I'm a little bit confused... Per HACKING we need three +1 votes from PMC members, at least one of which is for each platform (Windows and Unix). We have already met this requirement for both 1.14.2 and 1.10.8, haven't we? Nevertheless I agree it is good to have additional testing and signatures, for both platforms, and interested community members can and should feel free to participate. Cheers, Nathan
Re: Call for release signatures
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 09:37:08AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote: > Just a reminder, the 1.10.8 and 1.14.2 releases are posted and > available for testing and signatures. Please try to get them completed > by this Sunday. > > The plan is to make the release available on Tuesday April 12. > > Thanks > > Mark > We should have enough signatures according to ASF rules (need 3 signatures by PMC members), but not for our own cross-platform testing requirements (there is only one windows signature so far). Should we fail to meet our own higher standard, we can fall back on ASF rules, meaning we could release with the signatures we have available now. While not required this time around, the RM could in principle count their own signature against the 3 required by ASF. I don't mean to discourage further testing/signing; if you can test these releases on Windows or other platforms which have not yet been covered in some way, this would be very welcome. Testing from people outside the PMC is also always welcome, even though a signature won't be useful in this case. Cheers, Stefan
