[VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.

Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
(platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 01.04.2014 21:17, Ben Reser wrote:
> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.

+1

-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane@wandisco.com

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

On 4/1/14, 1:17 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
> 
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.

Canceling this vote.  New vote incoming shortly.

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>]

Op 1-apr.-2014 21:22 schreef "Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com>:
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
>>
>> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>>
>> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
>> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.
>>
>
> +1

+1

-- 
Johan

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:

> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.
>
>
+1




-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>]

Ben Reser wrote:
> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
> 
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.

+1.

- Julian

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 02.04.2014 20:24, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 02.04.2014 18:26, Ben Reser wrote:
>> On 4/2/14, 4:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.
>> Can you clarify if you mean this as a veto or just a vote against.  I'm a tad
>> fuzzy if vetos apply to policy changes (maybe someone can step in here and
>> remind me what applies here).
>
> It's not and cannot be a veto. A veto can only be raised for specific
> code changes on technical grounds.
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

That said, on this project, we've always strived to find consensus
instead of letting the majority dictate. Every -1, even when not a veto,
is a concern to be addressed. Which we are doing by way of discussing
the reasons in these two threads.

That the reasons appear inconsistent, if not downright arbitrary, is a
different matter.

-- Brane


-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane@wandisco.com

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 07.04.2014 09:33, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 2 April 2014 22:24, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 02.04.2014 18:26, Ben Reser wrote:
>>
>> On 4/2/14, 4:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>
>> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.
>>
>> Can you clarify if you mean this as a veto or just a vote against.  I'm a
>> tad
>> fuzzy if vetos apply to policy changes (maybe someone can step in here and
>> remind me what applies here).
>>
>>
>> It's not and cannot be a veto. A veto can only be raised for specific code
>> changes on technical grounds.
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>>
> Hi Branko,
>
> Strictly speaking the provided link doesn't specify that this is not
> and cannot be a veto since "Procedural Votes or Opinion Polls" section
> is marked with "TBS".

If you want to split hairs, it has always been the policy of this
project that a veto can only be raised on technical grounds. Therefore,
you cannot "veto" a policy change. Your concern has been noted, the vote
cancelled, and a new vote started that should address your concern.

-- Brane


-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane@wandisco.com

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>]

On 2 April 2014 22:24, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 02.04.2014 18:26, Ben Reser wrote:
>
> On 4/2/14, 4:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>
> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.
>
> Can you clarify if you mean this as a veto or just a vote against.  I'm a
> tad
> fuzzy if vetos apply to policy changes (maybe someone can step in here and
> remind me what applies here).
>
>
> It's not and cannot be a veto. A veto can only be raised for specific code
> changes on technical grounds.
>
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
>
Hi Branko,

Strictly speaking the provided link doesn't specify that this is not
and cannot be a veto since "Procedural Votes or Opinion Polls" section
is marked with "TBS".

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 02.04.2014 18:26, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 4/2/14, 4:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.
> Can you clarify if you mean this as a veto or just a vote against.  I'm a tad
> fuzzy if vetos apply to policy changes (maybe someone can step in here and
> remind me what applies here).

It's not and cannot be a veto. A veto can only be raised for specific
code changes on technical grounds.

https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html

-- Brane


-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane@wandisco.com

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

On 4/2/14, 4:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I'm against this release policy change:
> 1. Good support of Windows platform is one of considerable advantages
> of Subversion against other open-source version contol systems.
> 
> Windows has very different behavior on things that Subversion relies
> on: filename case-sensitivity, behavior of deleting/moving
> files/directories with open handles and locked files.
> 
> That's why 3+3 release policy is very important for Subversion project.

I don't think there's much harm in changing the policy for alphas and betas.
First of all these are clearly labeled as for testing purposes.  The whole
point of the releases is to find problems we don't know about.  If we know
about problems and we think that should hold up the alpha/beta release then we
can fix them.  Given the nature of an alpha release, the code is in active
development, there are always going to be issues, even issues we might know
about but still want feedback in spite of.

If we force ourselves down the path of treating alphas and betas to the same
standard as a release candidate or a final release, we're never going to put
them out at all.  Which seems to be your goal here.

I'll address your thoughts on 1.9.0-alpha2 over on that thread.

> 2. As I stated in the other thread, I personally is not confident
> enough or do not see reasons to release 1.9.0 alpha in the current
> state. That's why I haven't provided my signature for this release.
> But it's not a good idea to change the policy if somebody have doubts
> about the release. Note that most of the time we have Windows
> signatures before Unix ones for 1.8.x releases.

But with respect to policy changes.  How are we supposed to know that you
object to the release if you don't communicate it.  Silence = consent has
always been the policy around here.  So I'm working under the assumption that
people are fine with the release, they just haven't spent the time to vote (see
the reasons I gave in response to Julian's email on the 19th).

I waited two whole weeks after that for something to happen and nothing did.
So I prodded again and Mark said he didn't have an environment.  So I moved
forward with what Julian had suggested, which was changing the policy.

> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.

Can you clarify if you mean this as a veto or just a vote against.  I'm a tad
fuzzy if vetos apply to policy changes (maybe someone can step in here and
remind me what applies here).

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 02.04.2014 13:08, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 23:17, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
>> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>>
>> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
>> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.
> Hi Ben,
>
> I'm against this release policy change:
> 1. Good support of Windows platform is one of considerable advantages
> of Subversion against other open-source version contol systems.
>
> Windows has very different behavior on things that Subversion relies
> on: filename case-sensitivity, behavior of deleting/moving
> files/directories with open handles and locked files.
>
> That's why 3+3 release policy is very important for Subversion project.
>
> 2. As I stated in the other thread, I personally is not confident
> enough or do not see reasons to release 1.9.0 alpha in the current
> state. That's why I haven't provided my signature for this release.
> But it's not a good idea to change the policy if somebody have doubts
> about the release. Note that most of the time we have Windows
> signatures before Unix ones for 1.8.x releases.
>
> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.
>
> Please understand me correctly: I'd like to see Subversion 1.9.0 ASAP,
> but without trading off it's quality.

Eh, you're contradicting yourself. Releasing alphas is likely to improve
the quality of the 1.9 release, not reduce it. An alpha is never
considered to be stable and proven; that's why it's called alpha. Ben
even said so in the release announcement; we all talked about this
almost a year ago in Berlin (you were present, and I don't recall you
objecting).

An alpha is not a release candidate. It doesn't even impose a release
date on us. Then why should we make it rock-solid, as long as it works
well enough to be a useful preview for packagers, sysadmins and
common-or-garden users?

-- Brane


-- 
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane@wandisco.com

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>]

On 4/3/14, 1:52 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Maybe the following would be a good compromise: for alpha and beta
> releases we require 3 votes, of which minimum 1 Windows and minimum 1
> Unix.
> 
> Then we're certain that it at least compiles and runs on one variant
> of both platforms. It would be a bit embarrassing, even for alphas, if
> the first user that tries it doesn't get it to compile, and it appears
> noone in the dev community actually tried it.

No objection to that.

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 1 April 2014 23:17, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
>> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>>
>> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
>> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.
> Hi Ben,
>
> I'm against this release policy change:
> 1. Good support of Windows platform is one of considerable advantages
> of Subversion against other open-source version contol systems.
>
> Windows has very different behavior on things that Subversion relies
> on: filename case-sensitivity, behavior of deleting/moving
> files/directories with open handles and locked files.
>
> That's why 3+3 release policy is very important for Subversion project.

Maybe the following would be a good compromise: for alpha and beta
releases we require 3 votes, of which minimum 1 Windows and minimum 1
Unix.

Then we're certain that it at least compiles and runs on one variant
of both platforms. It would be a bit embarrassing, even for alphas, if
the first user that tries it doesn't get it to compile, and it appears
noone in the dev community actually tried it.

-- 
Johan

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>]

On 1 April 2014 23:17, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.
Hi Ben,

I'm against this release policy change:
1. Good support of Windows platform is one of considerable advantages
of Subversion against other open-source version contol systems.

Windows has very different behavior on things that Subversion relies
on: filename case-sensitivity, behavior of deleting/moving
files/directories with open handles and locked files.

That's why 3+3 release policy is very important for Subversion project.

2. As I stated in the other thread, I personally is not confident
enough or do not see reasons to release 1.9.0 alpha in the current
state. That's why I haven't provided my signature for this release.
But it's not a good idea to change the policy if somebody have doubts
about the release. Note that most of the time we have Windows
signatures before Unix ones for 1.8.x releases.

So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.

Please understand me correctly: I'd like to see Subversion 1.9.0 ASAP,
but without trading off it's quality.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:
> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.

+1.  (I've always maintained that platform shouldn't matter even for
releases; I understand the belt and suspenders...but, I think it's
overkill.)  -- justin

Re: [VOTE] Only require 3 votes for Alpha/Beta releases

[Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>]

+1.

-- Stefan^2.


On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> wrote:

> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release.
>
> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes
> (platform doesn't matter).  This does not apply to release candidates.
>