incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eddie O'Neil" <>
Subject Re: improving the incubator release process
Date Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:34:36 GMT
  I agree that we should instill Best Practice, which (IMHO) means
that podlings should learn a "real" Apache release process including
voting on new bits before graduating into the wild.

  More today than ever, a podling controls the smoothness its release
cycle given improved Incubator documentation and better tooling.  RAT
helped OpenJPA resolve lots of issues before a release was brought
before the IPMC.  There were issues raised that weren't resolved
(headers on the *.rsrc files) and the Sun XSD (sorry I missed that --
thanks for catching it!).

  Tools that enable PPMCs to obtain feedback about their releases are
Good Things, and we should require a RAT report for votes brought to
the IPMC.  For those that haven't used it, RAT is *super* easy to
checkout, build, and run -- great work Robert -- and adds virtually
zero overhead to the release process.  I'm a big fan and it makes my
job as a Mentor much easier.

  So, I agree that we need smoothness in the release process but
should stick to our release guidelines while enabling PPMCs to address
their own structural issues.

My $0.02.

On 11/18/06, Noel J. Bergman <> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> > > We'll correct these issues asap. Once corrected artifacts are
> > > uploaded, I assume it will necessary to re-start the vote on the open-
> > > jpa-dev list before re-starting the vote here. Please correct me if I
> > > am wrong.
> > there have been recent discussion around this topic of release process
> > in the incubator.
> I consider Roy's response to be a correct one.  The vote is on the release
> artifacts.  Although we can argue whether or not that is up to each PMC, we
> should be instilling what is at least a Best Practice to the incubating
> projects.
> > the long and slow feedback loop needs to be cut.
> If projects would run RAT and provide that report along with the request,
> and do so only after satisying RAT, it would go a long way to streamlining
> the process.
> > IMO the IPMC should be responsible for the technical content of the
> release only
> That's primarily what we do.
> > IMO it is unreasonable for the IPMC to review the semantic qualities
> > of a release. in other words, it is not reasonable for the IPMC to
> > judge whether the application or library works well enough to be
> > released
> When have you seen that be a serious talking point in our votes here?
>         --- Noel
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message