incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Release of Apache Allura (incubating) v1.0.0
Date Tue, 10 Sep 2013 17:31:06 GMT
On 9/9/13 12:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:47 AM, Rich Bowen <> wrote:
>> Hmm. Did we do something wrong with our call for vote?
> Perhaps not this one, though the voting on allura-dev@incubator was somewhat
> irregular.
> *   No "[VOTE]" in the subject.
> *   Spread out over multiple threads.
> *   No time specification.  (I recommend the phrase "at least 72 hours".)
> *   PPMC votes claimed as "binding", which is ambiguous.

Are they not binding for the PPMC vote?  Can you suggest what would be correct
and unambiguous?

> So long as the IPMC VOTE clears, though, those irregularities don't block the
> release IMO.
> I'd also like to note that the dev list archives for Allura are time-consuming
> and tedious to plow through -- the signal-to-noise ratio is poor due to the
> large number of auto-generated messages with trivial content.
>> Can anyone suggest any reason why we've gotten ZERO response to this message
>> or to Dave's followup?
> Allura has four Mentors.  You've voted, but where are the others?

I wonder this as well :(

> In today's Incubator, the most effective strategy for an individual podling to
> take is for its core contributors to become serious experts about Apache IP
> and release policy and to present squeaky clean release candidates which make
> a best effort to follow all known rules and guidelines.  In Allura's case, not
> only would it help to run the dev list VOTEs more cleanly, but it would help
> if PPMC members who vote +1 document exactly what steps they took to validate
> the release candidate.

Some of the PPMC have educated ourselves quite a bit on Apache IP & release
policy.  We now need IPMC members to validate our work.

> It's nice to see a list like this accompanying a +1 vote:

If it helps, here's what I validated when I +1'd on the podling vote:

* tarball name includes "incubating"
* PGP sig and checksums validate
* tarball builds and runs on OSX
* Jenkins CI build is green (thus tests pass on Ubuntu)
* tarball matches git checkout
* LICENSE headers on all files (as validated by RAT)
* NOTICE files, RAT exclusion list created correctly and incompatible
dependencies removed:
* initial CHANGES file created (no details since its first release)

>     *   Sums and sigs OK (log below).
>     *   Build from source tarball succeeds and passes tests on [list
>         platforms].
>     *   Extended tests pass on [list platforms].
>     *   RAT build target passes.
>     *   Tarball name contains "incubating".
>     *   Incubation DISCLAIMER included.
>     *   Expanded tarball matches version control tag exactly (diff log below).
>     *   LICENSE and NOTICE assembled according to
>         <> per discussion at
>         [link].
>     *   LICENSE and NOTICE up-to-date, as no dependencies have been added
>         since initial assembly.
>     *   All copyleft dependencies purged as documented at [issue].
>     *   Copyright date in NOTICE is current.
>     *   CHANGES entry is current.
>     *   Issue tracker clean (no open issues for this release).
>     ...
> Documented diligence by podling contributors lowers the cost of reviewing and
> voting for Mentors and other IPMC members, and may help to persuade those
> hanging back to participate.

Thanks for the suggestions.  We will try to hold our votes more cleanly and
provide supporting documentation, for our future releases.

I'm hopeful some IPMC members can step up now and help with this current release
vote, or provide further guidance if we're missing anything.

Dave Brondsema : : personal : programming

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

View raw message