Votes on Package Releases

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

  Votes on whether a package is ready to be released follow a format
  similar to majority approval -- except that the decision is officially
  determined solely by whether at least three +1 votes were
  registered. Releases may not be vetoed. Generally the community will
  table the vote to release if anyone identifies serious problems, but in
  most cases the ultimate decision, once three or more positive votes have
  been garnered, lies with the individual serving as release manager. The
  specifics of the process may vary from project to project, but the
  'minimum of three +1 votes' rule is universal.

Since Michael is serving as release manager for 3.0.3.  At this point,
it's up to him whether or not he wants to (my enumeration of the
possibilities here):

1. release 3.0.3 as-is since there are three positive votes and maybe
   someone will do a 3.0.4 later
2. repackage 3.0.3 with the patch and issue another call for votes
3. scrap 3.0.3 and package a 3.0.4 with the patch and call for votes for 3.0.4
4. release 3.0.3 as-is and also package a 3.0.4 and call for votes for 3.0.4

I personally think that #1 makes the most sense and would be the least
confusing.  #2 would be confusing to people who jumped the gun.  #3
seems silly.  #4 is ugly, but would be acceptable.  Michael's call.  ;-)

Remember, we could have very reasonably released 3.0.3 *last week* since
the critical AWL memory issue was already fixed.  ALL of the subsequent
patches were gravy.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/

Re: [OT] Votes on Package Releases

[Fred <te...@i-is.com>]

Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> I would think it silly to release both 3.0.3 and immediately release
> 3.0.4.

MS did it with Win98 / Win98 SE / Win ME, as long as your software is better
than what was the end of the 9x series, we should all be fine ;)

Thank you for allowing my wasting of your bandwidth.

Have a great day,
Frederic Tarasevicius

Re: Votes on Package Releases

[Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>]

FWIW, I'm +0 on releasing 3.0.3 vs 3.0.4. As far as I'm concerned, until the
release manager actually sends it out, it is just a number.

Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> 3. scrap 3.0.3 and package a 3.0.4 with the patch and call for votes for 3.0.4
[...]
> #3 seems silly

That's the one thing I disagree with. I see nothing silly about taking the
work that has gone into 3.0.3 so far, deciding that there is a reason not to
ship it, and having that work plus just a little bit more go into producing
a version that is numbered 3.0.4 before shipping.

The only silliness I see is the big deal this has turned into.

As you said, it is Michael's call. If he decides he wants to release a 3.0.4
instead of a 3.0.3, I would vote +1 for it. Releasing a 3.0.3 would not need
my vote.

I would think it silly to release both 3.0.3 and immediately release 3.0.4.

I won't push for including the DNS fixes for bug 4260 et. al. in a 3.0.x
release :-)

 -- sidney