incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: Release Verification Checklist
Date Fri, 06 Dec 2013 01:40:12 GMT
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:38 AM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 5 December 2013 10:37, Bertrand Delacretaz <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:

>>> ... Second, I'm amused that the "commits list" item was quietly dropped,
>>> but new checklist items have been inserted regarding the dev and private
>>> lists...
>> Pure oversight on my part, sorry...but what would we do if no reviewer
>> follows the commit lists? I don't think that's a reason to kill a release.
> Oversight of the commit list is vital; that is how we ensure that SCM
> only contains material that is permitted.
> The source release is then checked against SCM to ensure we are only
> published vetted material.
> If there is no review of the commit list, then the whole system breaks down.

I certainly agree that following the commits list is essential (and sought to
emphasize as much in the post at the top of the thread).  I'd barely even
considered the possibility that *none* of the reviewers might be following
the commits list.

However, I think that Bertrand's "provenance" checklist item largely achieves
what I'd been grasping for with the "commits list" item, and fits much better
into the context of approving the release.  If nobody's following the commits
list, that's an issue with serious implications for the project, but it's not
a direct release blocker.  If provenance is unsettled, though, that clearly
blocks the release.

Personally, I wouldn't feel confident checking the "provenance" item if I
wasn't watching the commits list.  It's true that the person making the commit
affirms that they have the right to their contribution, but still, I feel like
you need to at least be aware of what contributions have gone into the

Maybe there ought to be a note to such effect on the explanations page.  But
in any case, I'm OK with the "commits list" item disappearing, so long as the
"provenance" item stays.

As of revision 14 (removing the "dev list" and "private list" items) I'm now
generally satisfied with the content of the checklist items and hope to move
on to refining the workflow and surrounding documentation.

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message