incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: Release Verification Checklist
Date Sun, 01 Dec 2013 23:46:58 GMT
On 1 December 2013 19:09, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:
> 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.

Which is easier?
- have one checklist with some items that don't apply to all release votes
- have separate checklists for releases with and without binary artifacts

>> 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.

AFAICT there are only two different kinds of release votes:
- SCM and source
- SCM, source and convenience binaries

> 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.

The issue is that the N&L files may need to be diffferent for the
binary artifacts.
This is often overlooked.

> *   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?

I don't understand what this means:

ASF copyright correct in each top-level NOTICE.

Why is it necessary in addition to the following?

Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE correct for each distribution.

I think there needs to be a separate list of explanations that detail
the checks.

> Marvin Humphrey
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message