Vadim,
that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed. There might be
files now, but the procedure still has to be aligned to ASF wide guide
lines.
Before you wonder/think about conspiracy theories: Yes, I brought the
board (i.e. Henri) attention to this. It is necessary to change
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Vadim,
that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed.
You missed it too :) Existing procedure might be flawed in somebody's opinion,
and I'm not arguing that it is ideal, but proposed procedure is even worse. It
makes any release impossible: release
Or even better, let everyone follow their own procedures while loosely
fitting into a less restrictive set of obvious guidelines wrt
licensing / distribution locations /etc - so the rest of us don't have
to be punished because one or two projects are having issues getting
releases out
On
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
Vadim,
that is not the point. The procedure in itself is flawed.
You missed it too :) Existing procedure might be flawed in somebody's opinion,
and I'm not arguing that it is ideal, but proposed procedure is
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
resulting files. It's quick sine no actual software testing need to be
performed, just verify that zip unzips and tar untars.
I think one also needs to check that:
* that the various signature files are present and correct
*
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
resulting files. It's quick sine no actual software testing need to be
performed, just verify that zip unzips and tar untars.
I think one also needs to check that:
* that
sebb wrote:
Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary)
Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is required.
is completely different from voting on a release?
Not to me.
Voting on a release (on a tag) signifies that software is in a state where it
can
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary)
Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is required.
is completely different from voting on a release?
Not to me.
Voting on a release (on a
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root problem is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in the past but these policies don't have any logic that
sebb wrote on Monday, March 19, 2007 3:09 PM:
On 19/03/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Surely voting on creating a tag (if this is necessary)
Absolutely. Any release tag must be a community decision == vote is
required.
is completely different from voting on
On 19/03/07, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root problem is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in
I have a thought that may not be an immediate solution.
Isn't the correctness of a release from a build point of view a
testable condition? Shouldn't this be built in to the build system.
The apache servers would not allow an invalid package. They define
the pattern. Isn't this GUMP? Not
Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root problem is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in the past
Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope
it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws.
So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is
legitimately licensed. There are other things like software quality,
but I guess it's assumed (by me
I think we have to remember that the ASF provides an important legal
umbrella here. By setting policies which we follow (which of course can be
debated), it prevents us from being sued if an SCO-type situation develops.
This would be a low-probability, but extremely catastrophic event,
You have to be kidding me..
The only problem I see is that people are all caught up in policies /
processes but I've yet to hear what the actual root problem is. I'm
sure it's intended to somehow prevent something nasty that has
happened in the past but these policies don't have any logic that
Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
Ehh...Obviously I'm alone in my opinion so I'll shut up now, just
wanted to make sure I got my two cents in.
Make that two of us. ASF today indeed contains much more Administratium (thanks
Dave, great link!) than it used to.
Vadim
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 13:30 -0400, Jesse Kuhnert wrote:
Sure, of course it's ok for the ASF to dictate policies - I just hope
it's ok for me to question them / point out their flaws.
So the real problem as far as I can tell is making sure a release is
legitimately licensed. There are other
Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
that said, i would love to see some more automation of
signature/hash/LICENSE/NOTICE/zip-tar-consistency checking. i believe
Henk Penning does have some automated signature checking set up, but
that's all i know of, and it only happens after the release
Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience
even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results -
that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries
going out are good. More than likely 90% of the time everyone just
votes yes or no and trusts
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok so I'm a liar...I did want to point out that from my experience
even the most formal voting process won't get the desired results -
that everyone on the project certifies and checks that the binaries
going out are good. More than likely 90%
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures?
For example: community votes for a release, RM tags a release (and prepares
files), pmc rubber-stamps it with 'ACK'
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd
procedures?
Not me. We don't have absurd procedures, so we're already there.
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 19:01 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
[... on vote-then-release ...]
Trust me, I have done my share of releases this way, too. The thing is,
that while it was/is common practice, there are ASF-wide guidelines that
are not there to hinder people / add administrative barriers
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd
procedures?
Not me. We don't have absurd procedures, so
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd procedures?
For example: community votes for a release, RM tags a release (and
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal
protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal protection and non-absurd
Yeah, well I consider voting on something that doesn't exist yet to be
absurd. So there we are.
This whole thread is absurd. There is no technical issue here.
cvs tag FOOBAR_1_0_RC1
ant
scp...
...crickets...
cvs TAG FOOBAR_1_0
ssh...
mv FOOBAR_1.0-RC1... FOOBAR_1.0-final...
-andy
--
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 3/19/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
Those sites provide infrastructure, but absolutely no legal
protection.
Who says there is no way to combine legal
I always prefer to optimize my loops by unrolling them and doing each
step differently.
Funny to talk about pattern matching in a regexp thread :-D
Burnt from my release time to have Yegor chew through some POI bugs ...
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 19, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sebb wrote:
Also I think I need to update
headers as per [3], is that correct?
You also need a NOTICE file [3]
Updated license headers, added NOTICE to zip/tar.gz.
The NOTICE file is missing the copyright statement - see:
On 3/18/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/14/07, Vadim Gritsenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
You actually have to roll and sign a tarball/zip ball on which the vote
happens. Release-then-Vote seems to be the only accepted way by the
board these
On 3/19/07, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Something being a good idea and being required ASF policy are really
very different things.
The suffering is in the implication that I'm not already being
careful. That we're not all supposed to be slightly better than
average developers with
33 matches
Mail list logo
