incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Groovy 2.4.4-incubating
Date Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:39:17 GMT
Hi Cédric,

let me start with saying that I do appreciate your personal efforts
and the Groovy podling efforts in general. You guys are really
on-boarding quite well and are one of the easiest podling to mentor.

What I felt disappointed about is not that you produced a release
with L&N issues, but rather that you seems to have denied yourself
an opportunity to do it right based on incorrect assumptions. See bellow:

This email is not meant to block your RC (as it wasn't the case
with my original vote) but rather to try and refute some of those incorrect

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Cédric Champeau
<> wrote:
> 2015-07-16 18:49 GMT+02:00 Roman Shaposhnik <>:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Emmanuel Lécharny <> wrote:
>>> Le 16/07/15 10:41, Justin Mclean a écrit :
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> This vote passes with 4 binding "+1" votes, no "0" notes, and 2 "-1"
>>>>> binding votes.
>>>> If you read carefully I think you find there were 3 -1 votes on the binary
>>> True. I -1 the binary release. Interesting case : should we release if
>>> we have as many -1 than +1 ?
>> Personally, I'm disappointed in the podling for not taking
>> care of feedback that seems really easy to take care of.
> Again, saying we don't take this seriously is at best an error and
> honestly unfair.
> We take it very seriously and I am very disappointed
> that you think we don't.

Lets be clear, what I was referring to is this: the identified L&N issue
is a non-code change that has no implication to the stability of your
release whatsoever. Hence manually fixing it, re-spinning the RC and
calling a shortened (12-24h) vote doesn't seem to present a problem.

I just don't understand why you didn't entertain that as an option. Personally
I would've made myself available to cast my vote under very compressed
schedule if you actually ASKED for it.

> Not releasing would not have been serious, and we could have missed
> the short timeframe we have given the vacations of the team.
> It's also unfair because we took *very seriously* the comments for the
> first attempt of the release, a few weeks ago, and fixed *all of them*
> (and did even more than what you asked us to do).
> So I think our community deserved that release more than having the
> perfect L&N files (especially because as we said, the License file
> contains more, but not less, than required), and as
> Paul said, all jars produces *do* have them.
>> That's my strong expectation as well. If we're doing this whole
>> mentoring thing -- lets do it right.
> I sincerely hope my position is understood this time.

Then, perhaps, following up with the dot release once the current one
is out, would be a way to go. Dot releases are cheap and easy and
having a releases that is actually squeaky clean from the IP perspective
is what Incubation is partially about.


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

View raw message