You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2007/03/06 14:26:05 UTC
VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
As noted in recent dev list traffic (see below), we have a problem: we
haven't been able to publish a 3.2.0 prerelease tarball yet in the past
few weeks, due to lack of votes across two attempts.
Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
release.
[1]: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
[2]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
My vote: +1
I guess this is a PMC vote, so PMC members: please vote...
--j.
Justin Mason writes:
> Duncan Findlay writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:22:12PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
> > > should we just not bother with votes for prereleases?
> >
> > > To be honest, I can't see the harm in accidentally pushing a
> > > prerelease tarball at the wrong time -- and this is the second
> > > 3.2.0-preX that isn't garnering votes, so clearly the process is
> > > getting in the way here. :(
> >
> > > (Votes for "official" full releases, of course, would still be
> > > necessary)
> >
> > I think by ASF policy, we need a vote.
>
> Actually no, I don't think so.
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html only discusses voting
> requirements for "package releases" -- no mention of pre-releases or
> even RC packages. It was only our intepretation (
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy ) that requires votes
> on a PR tarball.
Re: VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:26:05PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> As noted in recent dev list traffic (see below), we have a problem: we
>> haven't been able to publish a 3.2.0 prerelease tarball yet in the past
>> few weeks, due to lack of votes across two attempts.
>
>> Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
>> tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
>> consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
>> releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
>> release.
>
> Can we get a confirmation of this (I don't know who to ask)? IIRC,
> this has come up before and prerelease tarballs required a vote.
>
I'm with Duncan on this one, I read over the ASF page yesterday and its
not clear in my mind. I remember that during incubation we had to be
very careful about any tarball we put out. There was some recent
discussions (sorry I don't remember where maybe the infra list) about
things like the snapshot tarballs, maybe we could dig into that and see
what came out there.
Michael
Re: VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:26:05PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
> As noted in recent dev list traffic (see below), we have a problem: we
> haven't been able to publish a 3.2.0 prerelease tarball yet in the past
> few weeks, due to lack of votes across two attempts.
> Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
> tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
> consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
> releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
> release.
Can we get a confirmation of this (I don't know who to ask)? IIRC,
this has come up before and prerelease tarballs required a vote.
--
Duncan Findlay
Re: VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:26:05PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> As noted in recent dev list traffic (see below), we have a problem: we
>> haven't been able to publish a 3.2.0 prerelease tarball yet in the past
>> few weeks, due to lack of votes across two attempts.
>
>> Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
>> tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
>> consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
>> releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
>> release.
>
>> [1]: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
>> [2]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
>> My vote: +1
>
>> I guess this is a PMC vote, so PMC members: please vote...
>
> +1 after board clarification that this is OK.
>
+1 from me as well.
Michael
Re: VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
Posted by Duncan Findlay <du...@debian.org>.
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:26:05PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
> As noted in recent dev list traffic (see below), we have a problem: we
> haven't been able to publish a 3.2.0 prerelease tarball yet in the past
> few weeks, due to lack of votes across two attempts.
> Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
> tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
> consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
> releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
> release.
> [1]: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
> [2]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> My vote: +1
> I guess this is a PMC vote, so PMC members: please vote...
+1 after board clarification that this is OK.
--
Duncan Findlay
Re: VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
Posted by Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>.
Take 2, this time sent to the mailing lists instead of to Justin :-)
Justin Mason wrote, On 7/3/07 2:26 AM:
> > Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
> > tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
> > consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
> > releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
> > release.
> >
> > [1]: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
> > [2]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> >
+1
I will note that my vote has more to do with agreeing that we don't need
more than lazy consensus for a prerelease tarball, and is definitely not
from an inclination to fix a problem with voting by defining the problem
away.
-- sidney
Re: VOTE: change voting procedure for prerelease tarballs
Posted by Doc Schneider <ma...@maddoc.net>.
Justin Mason wrote:
> As noted in recent dev list traffic (see below), we have a problem: we
> haven't been able to publish a 3.2.0 prerelease tarball yet in the past
> few weeks, due to lack of votes across two attempts.
>
> Currently, our release policy [1] requires 3 committer +1s to mark a
> tarball as a pre-release. I propose that we change this to "lazy
> consensus", instead, since ASF policy requires votes only for "package
> releases" [2], which I'd interpret as a *full*, general-availability
> release.
>
> [1]: http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
> [2]: http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
> My vote: +1
>
> I guess this is a PMC vote, so PMC members: please vote...
>
> --j.
>
>
> Justin Mason writes:
>> Duncan Findlay writes:
>>> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:22:12PM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>> should we just not bother with votes for prereleases?
>>>> To be honest, I can't see the harm in accidentally pushing a
>>>> prerelease tarball at the wrong time -- and this is the second
>>>> 3.2.0-preX that isn't garnering votes, so clearly the process is
>>>> getting in the way here. :(
>>>> (Votes for "official" full releases, of course, would still be
>>>> necessary)
>>> I think by ASF policy, we need a vote.
>> Actually no, I don't think so.
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html only discusses voting
>> requirements for "package releases" -- no mention of pre-releases or
>> even RC packages. It was only our intepretation (
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy ) that requires votes
>> on a PR tarball.
I counted 3 votes by committers already. 8*)
--
-Doc
Penguins: Do it on the ice.
8:44am up 4 days, 16:55, 17 users, load average: 0.18, 0.30, 0.37
SARE HQ http://www.rulesemporium.com/