"Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> * Anyone can already sign our releases, and we include their
> signatures with the release. I used to sign the Windows releases when
> I was not a committer, as an example.
Right.
> * So we are really talking about a process change where we will count
> these signatures as votes towards the actual release? Do we want to
> have any specific policies in place? Such as at least 1 or 2 full
> committer signatures on each file?
I was only talking about the voting significance -- in other words,
proposing that we open up the voting a bit, since testing Subversion has
no necessary connection to writing code.
> * I'd assume all partial committers are automatically included in this
> and do not need to be listed in SIGNERS.
No, I don't assume that. We give people partial commit access to
maintain Perl scripts and whatnot; nothing about the process says they
reliably test Subversion.
> * Will we accept -1's from people in SIGNERS?
Good question. No, a -1 just means there's a problem -- in which case
the right course is to describe the problem, and let the committers
(whose names are really on the line) decide what to do about it.
Another possibility is to loosen our formal release requirements and
just let the release manager decide how much testing (and by whom) is
enough. I'd actually be comfortable with that too. (Not proposing
changing the soak periods, though.)
I dunno. The more I think about it, the less enthused I am. The
SIGNERS file is eventually going to be a headache to maintain;
meanwhile, we've already seen more committers step up to do signing.
Let's just see how that goes and revisit if we must.
-Karl, thinking more carefully now
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-17 22:52:37 CEST