incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
Date Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:26:31 GMT

On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:29 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> Yes you make a good point- that any effort
> towards review is welcome and appreciated.
> It's just that having an exclusive focus
> on the things we can actually review here,
> namely adherence to License and Notice policy,
> can leave people with the mistaken impression
> that that's all that a PMC should concern itself
> with.  All of that daily effort that goes into
> validating commits on a project really should
> garner more appreciation from the PMC, if we
> could just find a way to be more trusting about
> who we let issue binding votes on behalf of
> the org.
> Really is it so bad to say to a project with
> a bug in their license and notice info: fix
> this in trunk and show me the revision and
> I'll go ahead and approve your release as-is.
> Running through iterations of this is very
> labor-intensive for the project, and anything
> we can do to cut down on the pain involved
> in cutting incubator releases is IMO worthwhile.

It is a mentoring issue. Some projects push commits onto their dev lists which forces attention,
but others do not for legitimate reasons.

I like your idea of a commit list subscriber report. Perhaps there should be a monthly email
from infra that reports to a project or podling the following:

(1) Subscribers to commit list.
(2) Table of commits to either svn or git with totals of commits and size of changes along
with information for the top 10 (or all) commits.

Since the list of subscribers should be private this can go to the PPMC monthly and the monthly
or quarterly report can go to the IPMC on the report schedule.

With Mentor's guidance projects will be gently guided into paying enough attention. The IPMC
can start paying attention to this data as it is a quick way to get an opinion about how a
podling is doing.


>> ________________________________
>> From: Sergio Fernández <>
>> To: 
>> Cc: Joe Schaefer <> 
>> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 2:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Expressing priorities about release reviews
>> Joe,
>> personally I appreciate such policies checking from the IPMC members. The technical
quality of a release is responsibility of the project itself, which could be hard to be evaluated
by people working on other topics. Therefore, all additional checkpoints are useful and grateful.
>> Cheers,
>> On 12/01/13 18:07, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> One of my long time pet peeves with how we
>>> PMC members participate in vetting releases
>>> is our penchant for focusing too much on the
>>> policies surrounding license and notice info.
>>> I really think our exclusive focus on things
>>> that really don't pose any organizational risk
>>> to either the org nor the project participants
>>> serves us well in our other, often unexpressed
>>> but far more relevant, goals about encouraging
>>> committers to participate in active review of
>>> their project's commit activity.
>>> Just think about this for a second, what's more
>>> likely for people to start suing us over, some
>>> bug in the NOTICE file or an undetected backdoor
>>> in one of our programs?  I am personally far more
>>> concerned about the current state of the actual
>>> review going on in our podlings than I am about
>>> NOTICE minutia.
>>> Maybe we should compile some list of which committers
>>> are actually subscribed to their project's commit lists?
>>> It's crude but it may be useful data to look at to
>>> a first order.
>> -- Sergio Fernández
>> Salzburg Research
>> +43 662 2288 318
>> Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II
>> A-5020 Salzburg (Austria)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message