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 Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:09:24 GMT
On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, sebb <> wrote:
> Not sure I understand why the checklist needs to be specific.

The checklist should include only items which might block the release of the
artifacts under review.  Expanding it to include unrelated concerns imposes an
unnecessary cost each time someone goes through the checklist.

Let's not make the release process any harder than it needs to be.

> It does not necessarily need to be a separate check item.
> Just a reminder that the N&L files are specific to the distributed
> items (SCM or release artifact).

I'm apprehensive that a single checklist which tries to be all things to all
projects will ultimately prove unworkable.  The design pressure is building
and eventually, customization will be the only answer.

Nevertheless, I've added a second draft to which attempts to address
your concerns.  Here are some of the changes:

*   Pluralize a few items to allow for the possibility that the release
    candidate VOTE encompasses multiple archives -- accommodating both
    projects which release multiple source archives simultaneously and
    projects which make convenience binaries available.
*   Require that LICENCE and NOTICE be "correct for each distribution".  To my
    mind this is superfluous because it was implied by "correct", but it's
    certainly something that projects get wrong a lot.
*   Simplify the testing checklist item to `[ ] All tests pass.`  This is
    weaker, in that it does not require building and testing of the *source*
    archive, but it is more compatible with more configurations.  The
    checklist item shouldn't require that all tests pass for *all* archives,
    because that doesn't work with platform-specific binaries; this language
    was the best general compromise I could come up with.
*   Change the "license headers" item to specify "source files", in order to
    resolve an incidental ambiguity with regards to whether "files" meant
    archive files or source files.

Can you live with this second draft?

Marvin Humphrey

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

View raw message