incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Incubator release task force
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:07:24 GMT
> From: Upayavira <>
>Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 5:37 PM
>Subject: Re: Incubator release task force
>While I (think I) can understand your concern (that it should be the
>mentors who are reviewing releases, not yet another group), I'd suggest
>that Jukka's approach might be a way to get there.

Not for me- it is the podling's PPMC that needs to vet them properly,
and we need to ensure that people who do a good job at that are suitably
empowered to cast binding votes on release candidates.  I can see why
podlings will be challenged for IPMC votes the first time thru, but
by the third release they should have enough IPMC participation in their
podling that the thought of coming to general@ and begging for votes
won't ever occur to them.

The reasons why we don't do this have nothing to do with the release process
or its documentation- it's just social norms colliding from different
areas of the ASF.

>The incubator release process is, at the moment, pretty fraught, and I
>suspect there are only a handful of people who really get it. I would

It sucks for the same old tired rationale behind excluding competent
peer reviewers from the halls of power here.  Some of us think this
is a core failing of the IPMC, others disagree.  If Jukka can satisfy
the anti-progressives and bring in more people willing to do a competent
job of reviewing candidates simply because these people are trying to
review other-podling candidates, more power to him.  Again I will say
that this is slightly missing the point about *competent* review versus
a casual glance at licensing issues that someone unskilled in a codebase
might AT-BEST provide.

>posit that one outcome of Jukka's suggestion is a simplified release
>process, which is likely to be understandable to a larger number of
>mentors, meaning you address your core issue.

The release process *is* simple but laborious- it's supposed to be that way.
But if you've done one successful release iterating on those learnings
is considerably easier than trying to do it from scratch with just our
bloated process docs.

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

View raw message