incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <>
Subject Re: jspwiki
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2012 01:03:07 GMT
Benson Margulies wrote:
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > Benson Margulies wrote:
> >>
> >> So, I voted for the release without making a detailed IP check (just
> >> signatures, buildability, etc) based on the state in the clutch.
> >
> > That's pretty worrying. A vote for a release is a verification that it is a
> > legally defensible release. No-one should get voting without doing a full
> > review.
> Ross, please clarify your view. If you think that every voter on every
> release at Apache is checking every single file for a correct header,
> then I think that there's a significant gap between theory and
> practice. If you are focussed in incubator issues, read on.
> In fact, it *is* a legally defensible release, unless the clutch is
> lying about IP clearance. Some missing or malformed headers do not
> make it legally defective, just not up to our usual standards. I did
> check the critical characteristics that make up a legally defensible
> release.

Clutch deliberately does not mention anything about "IP clearance".
People need to look for that detail elsewhere.

Also it deliberately does not have a column for whether their
RAT report has issues. Those reports need to be reviewed in detail.

> What I want to know about this is whether
> is lying to me when it claims that this project has released before.

I do see that you indicated elsewhere in this thread that
you did misinterpret that aspect of the table. Is there
something that we can do to make it more clear?

> I also think that we might have an incubator-specific issue here. When
> I participate in the PMC of running project, I depend on the PMC to
> verify headers and such either (a) at checkin, or (b) with rat. I do
> not think it's a great idea to leave that for release voting. However,
> I shouldn't be depending on podling members to know enough to do this,
> and apparently I can't depend on mentors. So perhaps the IPMC needs to
> take a more mandatory view of RAT.

> >> We seem to have a problem here. I've pinged two of the mentors here
> >> chosen by people in my gmail 'to' cache; could we get some input?

Henning did say here ages ago that he had stopped
being a Mentor, but people from the relevant podlings
still need to modify their lists of mentors.


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

View raw message