You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bloodhound.apache.org by Joachim Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com> on 2012/11/05 12:38:10 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
+1 (non-binding)
Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
Thanks,
Joe
On 31 October 2012 21:49, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Joachim Dreimann
> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> > The result of the vote is summarised here:
> > http://markmail.org/thread/zrgkleendiqvanzs
>
> This message didn't include an IPMC tally, but I see that Mentor Branko
> Čibej
> voted on the bloodhound-dev thread. That makes one IPMC member voting +1;
> two
> more are needed.
>
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Less than a day left... any takers?
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
--
Joe Dreimann
UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/>
*
*
*Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN
HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Joachim Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>.
Apologies, my mistake. I found his Email now.
- Joe
On 9 November 2012 10:29, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 08.11.2012 19:08, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> > Marvin: Thank you for the helpful feedback. I will discuss this with the
> > other devs and raise tickets for us as appropriate. I believe Hyrum has
> not
> > yet voted to my knowledge, only Brane. So we still need two votes at this
> > point.
>
> Hyrum voted +1. You need one more IPMC vote to release.
>
> -- Brane
>
>
--
Joe Dreimann
UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/>
*
*
*Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN
HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 08.11.2012 19:08, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> Marvin: Thank you for the helpful feedback. I will discuss this with the
> other devs and raise tickets for us as appropriate. I believe Hyrum has not
> yet voted to my knowledge, only Brane. So we still need two votes at this
> point.
Hyrum voted +1. You need one more IPMC vote to release.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 08.11.2012 19:08, Joachim Dreimann wrote:
> Marvin: Thank you for the helpful feedback. I will discuss this with the
> other devs and raise tickets for us as appropriate. I believe Hyrum has not
> yet voted to my knowledge, only Brane. So we still need two votes at this
> point.
Hyrum voted +1. You need one more IPMC vote to release.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Joachim Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>.
Marvin: Thank you for the helpful feedback. I will discuss this with the
other devs and raise tickets for us as appropriate. I believe Hyrum has not
yet voted to my knowledge, only Brane. So we still need two votes at this
point.
Matthew: Thank you for looking at voting for (or against) this release!
I will close the vote open on Sunday 18th November at the latest, or
earlier if we achieve three IPMC +1s before.
- Joe
On 8 November 2012 14:52, Franklin, Matthew B. <mf...@mitre.org> wrote:
> On 11/5/12 6:38 AM, "Joachim Dreimann" <jo...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> >+1 (non-binding)
> >
> >Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
> >if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
> >The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
>
> Unfortunately, a release requires at least 3 IPMC members to vote +1.
>
> I am looking at it now and will cast a vote when I have properly reviewed
> the release.
>
> >
> >We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
> >already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Joe
> >
> >
> >On 31 October 2012 21:49, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Joachim Dreimann
> >> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> > The result of the vote is summarised here:
> >> > http://markmail.org/thread/zrgkleendiqvanzs
> >>
> >> This message didn't include an IPMC tally, but I see that Mentor Branko
> >> Čibej
> >> voted on the bloodhound-dev thread. That makes one IPMC member voting
> >>+1;
> >> two
> >> more are needed.
> >>
> >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >>
> >> Less than a day left... any takers?
> >>
> >> Marvin Humphrey
> >>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Joachim Dreimann <jo...@wandisco.com>.
Marvin: Thank you for the helpful feedback. I will discuss this with the
other devs and raise tickets for us as appropriate. I believe Hyrum has not
yet voted to my knowledge, only Brane. So we still need two votes at this
point.
Matthew: Thank you for looking at voting for (or against) this release!
I will close the vote open on Sunday 18th November at the latest, or
earlier if we achieve three IPMC +1s before.
- Joe
On 8 November 2012 14:52, Franklin, Matthew B. <mf...@mitre.org> wrote:
> On 11/5/12 6:38 AM, "Joachim Dreimann" <jo...@wandisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> >+1 (non-binding)
> >
> >Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
> >if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
> >The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
>
> Unfortunately, a release requires at least 3 IPMC members to vote +1.
>
> I am looking at it now and will cast a vote when I have properly reviewed
> the release.
>
> >
> >We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
> >already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Joe
> >
> >
> >On 31 October 2012 21:49, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Joachim Dreimann
> >> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> >> > The result of the vote is summarised here:
> >> > http://markmail.org/thread/zrgkleendiqvanzs
> >>
> >> This message didn't include an IPMC tally, but I see that Mentor Branko
> >> Čibej
> >> voted on the bloodhound-dev thread. That makes one IPMC member voting
> >>+1;
> >> two
> >> more are needed.
> >>
> >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >>
> >> Less than a day left... any takers?
> >>
> >> Marvin Humphrey
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 11/5/12, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Joachim Dreimann
> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC
>> members
>> if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
>
> Sorry, no.
:'(
>> We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
>> already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
>
> That may be challenging.
>
[...]
>
> What I might suggest in general is doing things to get the code base
> squeaky
> clean and plainly so.
>
> * Make sure that the release passes RAT.
> * In fact, set up a buildbot to run RAT on a regular basis.
Already discussed [1]_ [2]_ [3]_ . Numbers may be tricky . Most of the
Unknown/Unlicensed files are those found in the (patched) copy of trac
we keep in the repository . I'm not sure of whether we should ignore
them . I don't know if anything new has been done about that either
... but we definitely should not have so many files (547 ?) in
conflict .
[...]
>
> * Script your release process and integrate legal checks into it.
>
yes , that's a good point
;)
.. [1] RE: RAT builds
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-bloodhound-dev/201208.mbox/%3C006101cd7617$a52e4210$ef8ac630$@16degrees.com.au%3E)
.. [2] Rat Report
(http://ci.apache.org/projects/bloodhound/rat-output.html)
.. [3] RAT Reports summaries for participating projects
(http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html)
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Olemis Lang <ol...@gmail.com>.
On 11/5/12, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Joachim Dreimann
> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> +1 (non-binding)
>>
>> Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC
>> members
>> if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
>
> Sorry, no.
:'(
>> We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
>> already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
>
> That may be challenging.
>
[...]
>
> What I might suggest in general is doing things to get the code base
> squeaky
> clean and plainly so.
>
> * Make sure that the release passes RAT.
> * In fact, set up a buildbot to run RAT on a regular basis.
Already discussed [1]_ [2]_ [3]_ . Numbers may be tricky . Most of the
Unknown/Unlicensed files are those found in the (patched) copy of trac
we keep in the repository . I'm not sure of whether we should ignore
them . I don't know if anything new has been done about that either
... but we definitely should not have so many files (547 ?) in
conflict .
[...]
>
> * Script your release process and integrate legal checks into it.
>
yes , that's a good point
;)
.. [1] RE: RAT builds
(http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-bloodhound-dev/201208.mbox/%3C006101cd7617$a52e4210$ef8ac630$@16degrees.com.au%3E)
.. [2] Rat Report
(http://ci.apache.org/projects/bloodhound/rat-output.html)
.. [3] RAT Reports summaries for participating projects
(http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html)
--
Regards,
Olemis.
Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/
Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/
Featured article:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Joachim Dreimann
<jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
> if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
Sorry, no. The same rules regarding releases that apply to all Apache
projects also apply to the Incubator:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?
Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
-- i.e., at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release,
and there must be more positive than negative votes.
The PMC members in this case are members of the _Incubator_ PMC. Without
three +1 IPMC votes, we don't have an ASF release.
> The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
Indeed, it's been a week.
We now have two +1 IPMC votes, but we need a third. Anybody available?
> We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
> already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
That may be challenging.
It appears that two IPMC members are core Bloodhound devs: Branko Čibej and
Hyrum Wright, both of whom have voted on this release already. Presumably,
they would stand ready to cast IPMC votes on a regular basis.
However, you only have one other Mentor (Greg), who is not a core dev. Voting
on releases when you're not a core dev is hard -- whether you're a Mentor or a
"freelance" IPMC member parachuting into a VOTE thread. Putting out release
after release puts strain on that weak point.
What I might suggest in general is doing things to get the code base squeaky
clean and plainly so.
* Make sure that the release passes RAT.
* In fact, set up a buildbot to run RAT on a regular basis.
* Get in the habit of documenting what actions you took to validate the
release in your VOTE email. (Checked sigs and sums, ran RAT, build and
test on various platforms, verified that artifacts match version control
tag, reviewed LICENSE and NOTICE, etc.)
* Get in the habit of ferreting out ASF documentation and citing it during
dev discussions.
* Script your release process and integrate legal checks into it.
If you make sure that no IPMC member ever has to vote -1 on your release, you
won't use up precious VOTEs -- and you'll also prepare your project for
graduation and beyond.
Marvin Humphrey
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Joachim Dreimann
<jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
> if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
Sorry, no. The same rules regarding releases that apply to all Apache
projects also apply to the Incubator:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
What are the ASF requirements on approving a release?
Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval
-- i.e., at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively for release,
and there must be more positive than negative votes.
The PMC members in this case are members of the _Incubator_ PMC. Without
three +1 IPMC votes, we don't have an ASF release.
> The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
Indeed, it's been a week.
We now have two +1 IPMC votes, but we need a third. Anybody available?
> We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
> already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
That may be challenging.
It appears that two IPMC members are core Bloodhound devs: Branko Čibej and
Hyrum Wright, both of whom have voted on this release already. Presumably,
they would stand ready to cast IPMC votes on a regular basis.
However, you only have one other Mentor (Greg), who is not a core dev. Voting
on releases when you're not a core dev is hard -- whether you're a Mentor or a
"freelance" IPMC member parachuting into a VOTE thread. Putting out release
after release puts strain on that weak point.
What I might suggest in general is doing things to get the code base squeaky
clean and plainly so.
* Make sure that the release passes RAT.
* In fact, set up a buildbot to run RAT on a regular basis.
* Get in the habit of documenting what actions you took to validate the
release in your VOTE email. (Checked sigs and sums, ran RAT, build and
test on various platforms, verified that artifacts match version control
tag, reviewed LICENSE and NOTICE, etc.)
* Get in the habit of ferreting out ASF documentation and citing it during
dev discussions.
* Script your release process and integrate legal checks into it.
If you make sure that no IPMC member ever has to vote -1 on your release, you
won't use up precious VOTEs -- and you'll also prepare your project for
graduation and beyond.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
On 11/5/12 6:38 AM, "Joachim Dreimann" <jo...@wandisco.com>
wrote:
>+1 (non-binding)
>
>Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
>if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
>The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
Unfortunately, a release requires at least 3 IPMC members to vote +1.
I am looking at it now and will cast a vote when I have properly reviewed
the release.
>
>We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
>already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
>
>
>On 31 October 2012 21:49, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Joachim Dreimann
>> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > The result of the vote is summarised here:
>> > http://markmail.org/thread/zrgkleendiqvanzs
>>
>> This message didn't include an IPMC tally, but I see that Mentor Branko
>> Čibej
>> voted on the bloodhound-dev thread. That makes one IPMC member voting
>>+1;
>> two
>> more are needed.
>>
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> Less than a day left... any takers?
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Joe Dreimann
>UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/>
>*
>*
>*Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN
>HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
On 11/5/12 6:38 AM, "Joachim Dreimann" <jo...@wandisco.com>
wrote:
>+1 (non-binding)
>
>Is there precedent on releasing with less than three +1s from IPMC members
>if there are no 0s or -1s from anyone at all?
>The minimum required 72 hours have also passed.
Unfortunately, a release requires at least 3 IPMC members to vote +1.
I am looking at it now and will cast a vote when I have properly reviewed
the release.
>
>We'd really like to establish a frequent release cycle, Bloodhound 0.3 is
>already ready to be packaged up as soon as 0.2 has been released.
>
>Thanks,
>Joe
>
>
>On 31 October 2012 21:49, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:22 AM, Joachim Dreimann
>> <jo...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > The result of the vote is summarised here:
>> > http://markmail.org/thread/zrgkleendiqvanzs
>>
>> This message didn't include an IPMC tally, but I see that Mentor Branko
>> Čibej
>> voted on the bloodhound-dev thread. That makes one IPMC member voting
>>+1;
>> two
>> more are needed.
>>
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> Less than a day left... any takers?
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Joe Dreimann
>UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/>
>*
>*
>*Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN
>HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *