|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 24, 2012 2:23 am|
|Andrea Pescetti||Feb 24, 2012 2:53 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 24, 2012 3:05 am|
|Raphael Bircher||Feb 24, 2012 3:37 am|
|Andrea Pescetti||Feb 24, 2012 3:40 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 24, 2012 4:18 am|
|Andre Fischer||Feb 24, 2012 4:26 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 24, 2012 4:28 am|
|Rory O'Farrell||Feb 24, 2012 4:33 am|
|Rory O'Farrell||Feb 24, 2012 4:36 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 24, 2012 4:42 am|
|imacat||Feb 24, 2012 7:16 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 24, 2012 8:03 am|
|Rob Weir||Feb 24, 2012 4:05 pm|
|Pedro Giffuni||Feb 24, 2012 6:24 pm|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 25, 2012 3:06 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 25, 2012 3:19 am|
|O.Felka||Feb 25, 2012 3:26 am|
|Ross Gardler||Feb 25, 2012 4:15 am|
|Kay Schenk||Feb 25, 2012 8:53 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 26, 2012 12:52 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 26, 2012 1:05 am|
|Michael Bauer||Feb 26, 2012 3:40 am|
|Rob Weir||Feb 26, 2012 11:50 am|
|Jürgen Schmidt||Feb 27, 2012 2:12 am|
|Andre Fischer||Feb 27, 2012 2:30 am|
|Michael Bauer||Feb 27, 2012 5:03 am|
|Andre Fischer||Feb 27, 2012 6:27 am|
|Andrea Pescetti||Feb 27, 2012 6:55 am|
|Michael Bauer||Feb 27, 2012 7:47 am|
|Andre Fischer||Feb 27, 2012 8:04 am|
|Michael Bauer||Feb 27, 2012 8:43 am|
|Kay Schenk||Feb 28, 2012 4:08 pm|
|Andrea Pescetti||Feb 29, 2012 12:58 pm|
|Andre Fischer||Mar 1, 2012 2:48 am|
|Paolo Pozzan||Mar 3, 2012 11:28 am|
|Andrea Pescetti||Mar 10, 2012 6:13 am|
|Subject:||Re: [RELEASE]: preparation for our first release|
|From:||Jürgen Schmidt (jogi...@googlemail.com)|
|Date:||Feb 26, 2012 1:05:26 am|
Am Samstag, 25. Februar 2012 schrieb Ross Gardler :
On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Ross Gardler
Without commenting on the dates, schedules and technical issues I would urge you to make sure you allow significant time for IP review from mentors and the IPMC. I imagine this release will get a great deal of attention and, almost without a doubt, someone will come up with something that needs to be addressed.
Mentors and IPMC members have had 8 months to offer IP related comments. They are welcome at any time. But in my experience declaring a Release Candidate is especially effective at concentrating their attention on that task.
Exactly (this is especially true of those who are not formally mentors).
We should plan on having multiple RC iterations. There are enough unwritten rules related to release requirements that we'll almost certainly need several iterations.
You've been paying attention to recent discussions on firstname.lastname@example.org I see ;-)
Glad to see this is a part of the release planning process.
But the most effective way to uncover these unwritten rules is by proposing a RC for a release vote.
I would caution against this approach, generally a vote (any vote) should only ever be called when you know it will pass. If you call for the vote indicating that it is likely to pass because of the process followed people are less likely to become involved and dredge up a half dozen edge cases as objections.
I happen to be be sat with Nick Burch, during a fashion show in a hotel lobby in Sri Lanka believe it or not! Nick is a very experienced ASF member who until recently was chair of the POI project, a project that has experience of being under the IP microscope (he also hit significant problems with the first ODF Toolkit release). He and I have been discussing what we believe will be the least painful way of getting the first AOO release out. Between us we suggest that you invite the IPMC to start the review now in order to attract as many interested, but helpful, volunteers as you can. We both feel that by inviting some key IPMC members to participate now a stronger, more positive vote can be called later. Votes attract attention from many more people than requests for assistance.
thanks for sharing such thoughts with the broader community. I am happy to get so many useful info which is important for our release by simply using 2 letters "RC" and a potential date.
And I would be even more happy if more people would start pro-active helping to prepare a release.
I think we can invite the IPMC to take a closer or first look on our next dev snapshots on Tuesday. I will prepare source release snapshots as well.
I would like to see at least the rules requirements for an Apache release fulfilled asap to be able to concentrate on the quality.
I will be back in HH on Monday and will work on further preparation towards a release ;-)
Consider sending a mail to email@example.com along the lines of...
"The AOO PPMC is getting ready to prepare for our first release. As you can imagine we have done a great deal of IP work. We believe we are in good shape and our mentors have been asked to further review our work. However, we are also aware that releases from the IPMC can often highlight many grey areas in the legal policies of the ASF. Outlined below is the process we intend to follow in ensuring that our first vote on a release candidate is successful, if you are well versed in Apache policies relating to releases we welcome your input on this process and invite you to help us review our code prior to our first RC build and vote."
I realise this is only a small difference from what you propose with multiple release candidates. My point is that calling a vote attracts much more attention than calling for help. Whilst feedback on a vote is often very useful it can also be contradictory. If we ask for input from experienced parties and document their recommendations and the actions taken in the issue tracker we can then refer to this in the vote, in some cases breaking the deadlock that can occur where feedback contradicts.
All that being said. this is just an alternative approach to the multiple RC approach. There can be no predicting which is will be the least painless - whichever route is followed there will almost certainly be pain, even the simplest of projects usually have items that have been missed by the project community and mentors.
Of course we should first make sure were following all the written rules.
I think, in this respect, the project is doing well. Although I have not yet done my own complete review.