On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 6:42 PM, sebb wrote:
> The current source release artifacts must be released via the ASF mirroring
> system. Download pages must not point directly to the ASF servers; they
> must use the mirror CGI scripts Also old releases must not be left on the
> mirroring system; any
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:07 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> There was a time not long ago, where hardly anything
> was documented. Rather it was just common-sense.
> So in my opinion, not being in those docs does not mean
> that it is not required.
If there are required items which have been inadver
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ant elder wrote:
> >
> > All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be
> > documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests
> > its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should
> > go get consens
Just discovered another important aspect of a release that is often overlooked.
The current source release artifacts must be released via the ASF
mirroring system.
Download pages must not point directly to the ASF servers; they must
use the mirror CGI scripts
Also old releases must not be left on
The N word wasn't particularly helpful or constructive, sorry. I do think
the policy page should be kept simple and generic though, so isn't the
place to be describing this experiment.
...ant
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:39 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Well sorry but IMHO thats nonsense. The Maven d
Well sorry but IMHO thats nonsense. The Maven decision was an isolated
incident and didn't change the way all future Incubator policy should
get decided. Insisting that this experiment is done via a change to
the main policy just makes it contentious when it doesn't need to be.
All the complexity i
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'm also opposed to updating the policy document, so will be voting against
> this just for that. Its just an experiment so you don't need to be making a
> permanent change to the policy page to try it, especially as its such a
> clunky convolu
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Dave Fisher
> wrote:
>
> So...
>
> * Ant likes the voting rule change, but is opposed to the checklist.
>
I'm also opposed to updating the policy document, so will be voting against
this just for that
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Another rule is better than my straw man. Marvin really missed my point -
> which was 3 IPMC is the way it is done and I don't see a need to change.
I was fooled, yes.
Since there's no compromise that would secure your vote, I'll go with my
after the
first...
>
> We do have mentors who are not members, and that's fine IMO.
Yes it is. It is very fine.
I LIKE this process in all aspects except this change in the 3 +1 from the IPMC
rule. Can the VOTE separate the two experiments?
(1) Vote +1/-1 for the Release Verificati
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...Next, I will start a PROPOSAL thread, to
> re-engage with the rest of the list...
There's been ample space for people to comment on this in the last few
weeks, I'd be clear that we don't expect any core changes we agree on
the final pro
Hi Marvin,
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> I also went another round on the Manifest template and the Release Procedure
> section of the guide (not yet committed): https://paste.apache.org/a1ya ...
Looks good to me but why "it must be approved by a Mentor (who must
also
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Looks good to me but I'd ask for a [VOTE] here before committing this.
Yes. I'm supplying this patch now for comment from the people who are
following these threads closely. Next, I will start a PROPOSAL thread, to
re-engage with th
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I've just added "as a plain text file" in the release manifest creation
> section.
>
> I suggest using simpler, more active phrases for a few things at
> https://paste.apache.org/fBoJ - feel free to apply or not, it's mostly
> a quest
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...here's a first take for a patch to the policy page which will be
> submitted as part of the PROPOSAL...
> https://paste.apache.org/4A1I
Looks good to me but I'd ask for a [VOTE] here before committing this.
Suggestions:
Call
Hi Marvin,
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...I've taken a stab at a second draft:
>
>http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html
>
Short and sweet, I like it!
I've just added "as a plain text file" in the release manifest creation section.
I suggest using sim
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> Added to a new "usage proposal" section at
>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist - does that
>> proposal work for you guys?
>
> I like it. It basically looks
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> Define "lower bar". Do you see any of the review items
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release_manifest.txt as optional?
>>
> ...Probably all of those could be optional or fixed next t
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
>> voting against this proposal.
>
> I plan to propose this as an experiment
Well ok, earlier you said you'd planed it
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
> voting against this proposal.
I plan to propose this as an experiment which podlings would opt into.
Hopefully, I can persuade you not to oppose such an experiment, just as you
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:30 PM, ant elder wrote:
>...The point is i think that podlings learn
> about the requirements but that doesn't mean we must block releases or
> make people jump through hoops to do that learning...
I agree with that, and I don't think we're saying that all items from
the
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> ...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
>> should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
>
> I wouldn't set this as a goal. It's ni
On 9 December 2013 22:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> ...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
>> should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
>
> I wouldn't set this as a goal. It's nice when
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 11:34 AM, ant elder wrote:
> ...2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
> should more proactively do that) not stay to do more...
I wouldn't set this as a goal. It's nice when it happens, but as you
say the goal is for a podling to be gene
I know you're passionate about this Marvin but as it stands I'll be
voting against this proposal.
1) This proposal doesn't help podlings with the first release
2) Podlings should normally graduate after the first release (and we
should more proactively do that) not stay to do more
3) The proposal
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> ...I think two more improvements are needed:
>
> (1) PPMC members should be sure to record the votes of community members who
> are not PPMC/committers and have no apache id.
> (2) The header should include a reference to the VOTE thread.
Hi,
Been following the thread and noticed one of the items on the list is:
"Issue tracker clean for release version."
Is that really expected? I would expect progress and issue closed since
last release but not everything in the issue tracker addressed. Is it clear
what "clean" means in this con
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> We have a lot of pending votes and I see you guys discussing about
> rules why not spend your times on having a look at those votes...
If we succeed in changing the system so that my participation doesn't let AWOL
Mentors off the hook[1], deny
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:55 AM, ant elder wrote:
> All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be
> documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests
> its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should
> go get consensus
On 6 December 2013 20:55, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb wrote:
>> > On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <
>> mar...@rectangular.com> wr
On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
>>> ...
>>
>> Added to a new "us
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
>> ...
>
> Added to a new "usage proposal" section at
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Relea
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb wrote:
> > On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <
> mar...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
> >>> ... Second, I'm amused that the "commit
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> ... Second, I'm amused that the "commits list" item was quietly dropped,
>>> but new checklist items have been inserted regarding
On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> wrote:
>> ...3.6 Release consists of source code only, no binaries
>>
>> Technically we allow some "binary" form
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> ...3.6 Release consists of source code only, no binaries
>
> Technically we allow some "binary" formats like .jpg, .png, etc. in releases
> without the corresponding c
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/votes/$PODLING/$RC
> ...
Added to a new "usage proposal" section at
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist - does that
proposal work for you guys?
(and thinking about
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:42 PM, ant elder wrote:
> Just fyi so I'm not accused of not saying anything - I'm not totally sure
> what the intention is for this and I'm all for doing some experiments and
> wouldn't get in the way if this is to be tried with a podling, however this
> looks like its b
Just fyi so I'm not accused of not saying anything - I'm not totally sure
what the intention is for this and I'm all for doing some experiments and
wouldn't get in the way if this is to be tried with a podling, however this
looks like its becoming a fairly complex and arduous process to me.
...
There is a small negative to this process. How do non-committers VOTE on
releases?
This doesn't make me negative, but we ought to have an explanation.
On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
>> Which we already have a
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Which we already have at
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public/trunk/ - podlings are
> already supposed to keep their info up to date there.
I suggest putting votes here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/public
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I have just added an alternate proposal there, which avoids repeating
> the checklist items to make it easier to "review the review".
Having watched how the ASF Board edits the agenda in svn before each monthly
meeting, I agree that thi
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ...people who review releases work directly on the
>> svn document, enter their comments there and that counts as a +1
>> towards the release
>>
> Sure, then we need an svn tree that
On Dec 3, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> ... But it is much harder to update an SVN document compared with replying
>>> to an e-mail.
>>
>> Someone running the VOTE would need to
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
>>... But it is much harder to update an SVN document compared with replying
>> to an e-mail.
>
> Someone running the VOTE would need to update SVN as each vote comes in.
>
> There would need to be an ema
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:17 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 2 December 2013 13:52, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> ...I think managing and keeping such release manifests in svn, at least
>> for incubating projects, would make the release process much clearer
>> and easier to understand.
>
> But it is much har
On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:17 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 2 December 2013 13:52, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey
>> wrote:
>>> ...In response to Bertrand's proposal at <http://s.apache.org/awz>, I&#
On 2 December 2013 13:52, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
>> ...In response to Bertrand's proposal at <http://s.apache.org/awz>, I've
>> created
>> a draft release verification checkli
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> ...In response to Bertrand's proposal at <http://s.apache.org/awz>, I've
> created
> a draft release verification checklist:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist ...
Thanks
On Dec 1, 2013, at 4:47 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher 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 P
On 12/1/13 4:47 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher 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 m
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:46 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Can you live with this second draft?
>
> I don't understand what this means:
>
> ASF copyright correct in each top-level NOTICE.
>
> Why is it necessary in addition to the following?
>
> Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE correct for each distribution.
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Dave Fisher 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 beh
On 1 December 2013 19:09, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.
>
> The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
> artifacts under review. Expanding it to include unre
Marvin,
I applaud your efforts here. If we are going to take PPMC release votes as
binding then we should be sure that these are up to standards. Even if we
don't this is still very valuable.
One note I have is I don't think we should be teaching that some of release
steps are "optional" when
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb wrote:
> Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.
The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
artifacts under review. Expanding it to include unrelated concerns imposes an
unnecessary cost each time someo
On 29 November 2013 21:00, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> The N&L files also apply to the SCM tree;
>
> Yes, true. Here's a message from Doug Cutting to legal-discuss@apache
> on the subject: http://s.apache.org/9r7>.
>
> In my view, it's appropriate f
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM, sebb wrote:
> The N&L files also apply to the SCM tree;
Yes, true. Here's a message from Doug Cutting to legal-discuss@apache
on the subject: http://s.apache.org/9r7>.
In my view, it's appropriate for someone reviewing a release to comment on
whether the SCM tr
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:55 PM, David Crossley wrote:
> Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>> [ ] Incubation disclaimer is present and correct.
>
> There is also the naming of the release, which must have "incubating"
> in its name. As Clutch tries to report, many projects neglect that.
> Perhaps change tha
On 27 November 2013 20:45, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> Greets,
>
> In response to Bertrand's proposal at <http://s.apache.org/awz>, I've created
> a draft release verification checklist:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
>
> It should b
Marvin Humphrey wrote:
>
> In response to Bertrand's proposal at <http://s.apache.org/awz>, I've created
> a draft release verification checklist:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
Thnaks for your huge efforts Marvin.
> [ ] Incubation
Greets,
In response to Bertrand's proposal at <http://s.apache.org/awz>, I've created
a draft release verification checklist:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ReleaseChecklist
It should be emphasized that completing a checklist like this at release
points is only one aspe
62 matches
Mail list logo
