incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Lamy <>
Subject Re: Release Verification Checklist
Date Sun, 08 Dec 2013 22:49:55 GMT
On 6 December 2013 20:55, ant elder <> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey <>wrote:
>> 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
>> product.
>> 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.
> All the stuff required to be checked when voting on a release should be
> documented in the ASF doc about releases. That its not in that doc suggests
> its not required. If someone thinks something is required then they should
> go get consensus around that with the wider ASF and get the ASF doc updated.
> Podling releases are not quite the same as TLP releases, thats why they
> have the DISCLAIMER and "incubating" naming. I think we should be making it
> easier for podlings to do releases, if its really necessary then make an
> audit of the last release a requirement of graduation.
>    ...ant

+1 I don't see why releasing in incubator must be more complicated
than in TLPs and have more rules.
We have a lot of pending votes and I see you guys discussing about
rules why not spend your times on having a look at those votes...
And with such discussion we don't  look very attractive. Isn't the
goal of the ASF to have a lot of project developed here?

Sorry personally I don't have time to read/participate the whole
thread as I prefer to spend my time on writing softwares.

But my participation could be: is it possible to add something in the
verification checklist as "Build great/usable software for our lovely

/me tired reading all of this over complicated administrative threads...

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

View raw message