incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Replacing Incubator Release Management guide
Date Fri, 30 Dec 2016 02:31:39 GMT
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament <> wrote:
> This is what I'm trying to say with these sentences:
> Those reviewing the releases will provide the release managers
>                     with information about what is wrong with the release.
> Release managers should consider issues reported as blocking, unless told
> otherwise
>                     by those reporting the issue.
> I'd rather not use the term "pass" and I'd prefer if it were understood by
> podlings that the default should be to try to fix the release, unless its
> explicitly called out.

I understand, but the structure of the sentence makes it difficult to appreciate
that mentors/IPMC folks are gatekeepers on what may and may not pass in
the incubating release. It is also somewhat confusing on the role of the RM.

So how about something like:

It is well understood that one of the goals of incubation is to help a
podling understand how to build
ASF compliant releases. This is why its mandatory to have at least 3
+1 votes from IPMC members
review the releases (this may or may not include your mentors) for
accuracy in compliance with the
ASF and Incubator policies. The podling community, of course, needs to
be fully engaged in review
process as well. Anybody reviewing  the releases will provide the
release manager and IPMC members
with information about what is wrong  with the release. The severity
of the issues and whether they are
blocking or not is up to the discussion  but the ultimate guidance on
where podling releases may get
additional flexibility belongs to the mentors and IPMC members.


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

View raw message