[REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Gilles Sadowski


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:55:42 +0200
 From: Gilles <[hidden email]>
To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <[hidden email]>

Hi.

This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).

Tag name:
   RNG_1_0_RC1 (signature can be checked from git using 'git tag -v')

Tag URL:
   
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rng.git;a=commit;h=f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5

Commit ID the tag points at:
   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5

Site:
   http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site

Distribution files:
   https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/rng/

Distribution files hashes (SHA1):
   a221e862c8ff970a9ca3e7fbd86c3200d1f8780a commons-rng-1.0-bin.tar.gz
   689b2bfbdb1856d4f47851d75762aab42057805a commons-rng-1.0-bin.zip
   40b7b1639eedf91b5fad5d38e6ebec01e659048f commons-rng-1.0-src.tar.gz
   6296dbabde10169d6365bda99f2af6dcc191e515 commons-rng-1.0-src.zip

KEYS file to check signatures:
   http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS

Maven artifacts:
   
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1199/org/apache/commons/commons-rng/1.0/

[ ] +1 Release it.
[ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
[ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
[ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...

This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2016-09-14T15:10:00Z (this is UTC
time).
----------

Thanks,
Gilles



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Benedikt Ritter-4
Hello Gilles,

sorry for the delay. I won't have the time to review this RC before
Saturday :-(

Benedikt

Gilles <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 14. Sep. 2016 um
11:29 Uhr:

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0
> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:55:42 +0200
>  From: Gilles <[hidden email]>
> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
> Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <[hidden email]>
>
> Hi.
>
> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>
> Tag name:
>    RNG_1_0_RC1 (signature can be checked from git using 'git tag -v')
>
> Tag URL:
>
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rng.git;a=commit;h=f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>
> Commit ID the tag points at:
>    f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>
> Site:
>    http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site
>
> Distribution files:
>    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/rng/
>
> Distribution files hashes (SHA1):
>    a221e862c8ff970a9ca3e7fbd86c3200d1f8780a commons-rng-1.0-bin.tar.gz
>    689b2bfbdb1856d4f47851d75762aab42057805a commons-rng-1.0-bin.zip
>    40b7b1639eedf91b5fad5d38e6ebec01e659048f commons-rng-1.0-src.tar.gz
>    6296dbabde10169d6365bda99f2af6dcc191e515 commons-rng-1.0-src.zip
>
> KEYS file to check signatures:
>    http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>
> Maven artifacts:
>
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1199/org/apache/commons/commons-rng/1.0/
>
> [ ] +1 Release it.
> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>
> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2016-09-14T15:10:00Z (this is UTC
> time).
> ----------
>
> Thanks,
> Gilles
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Gilles Sadowski
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:42:17 +0000, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello Gilles,
>
> sorry for the delay. I won't have the time to review this RC before
> Saturday :-(

Could someone else please provide the missing vote earlier?

Regards,
Gilles

>
> Benedikt
>
> Gilles <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 14. Sep. 2016
> um
> 11:29 Uhr:
>
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0
>> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:55:42 +0200
>>  From: Gilles <[hidden email]>
>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>> Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>
>> Tag name:
>>    RNG_1_0_RC1 (signature can be checked from git using 'git tag
>> -v')
>>
>> Tag URL:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rng.git;a=commit;h=f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>
>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>    f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>
>> Site:
>>    http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site
>>
>> Distribution files:
>>    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/rng/
>>
>> Distribution files hashes (SHA1):
>>    a221e862c8ff970a9ca3e7fbd86c3200d1f8780a
>> commons-rng-1.0-bin.tar.gz
>>    689b2bfbdb1856d4f47851d75762aab42057805a commons-rng-1.0-bin.zip
>>    40b7b1639eedf91b5fad5d38e6ebec01e659048f
>> commons-rng-1.0-src.tar.gz
>>    6296dbabde10169d6365bda99f2af6dcc191e515 commons-rng-1.0-src.zip
>>
>> KEYS file to check signatures:
>>    http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>
>> Maven artifacts:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1199/org/apache/commons/commons-rng/1.0/
>>
>> [ ] +1 Release it.
>> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
>> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
>> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>>
>> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2016-09-14T15:10:00Z (this is
>> UTC
>> time).
>> ----------
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Stian Soiland-Reyes
I'll have a go :)

On 14 September 2016 at 13:49, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:42:17 +0000, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>
>> Hello Gilles,
>>
>> sorry for the delay. I won't have the time to review this RC before
>> Saturday :-(
>
>
> Could someone else please provide the missing vote earlier?
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>
>>
>> Benedikt
>>
>> Gilles <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 14. Sep. 2016 um
>> 11:29 Uhr:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: [VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0
>>> Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:55:42 +0200
>>>  From: Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>> To: Commons Developers List <[hidden email]>
>>> Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>>
>>> Tag name:
>>>    RNG_1_0_RC1 (signature can be checked from git using 'git tag -v')
>>>
>>> Tag URL:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-rng.git;a=commit;h=f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>
>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>    f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>
>>> Site:
>>>    http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site
>>>
>>> Distribution files:
>>>    https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/rng/
>>>
>>> Distribution files hashes (SHA1):
>>>    a221e862c8ff970a9ca3e7fbd86c3200d1f8780a commons-rng-1.0-bin.tar.gz
>>>    689b2bfbdb1856d4f47851d75762aab42057805a commons-rng-1.0-bin.zip
>>>    40b7b1639eedf91b5fad5d38e6ebec01e659048f commons-rng-1.0-src.tar.gz
>>>    6296dbabde10169d6365bda99f2af6dcc191e515 commons-rng-1.0-src.zip
>>>
>>> KEYS file to check signatures:
>>>    http://www.apache.org/dist/commons/KEYS
>>>
>>> Maven artifacts:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1199/org/apache/commons/commons-rng/1.0/
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release it.
>>> [ ] +0 Go ahead; I don't care.
>>> [ ] -0 There are a few minor glitches: ...
>>> [ ] -1 No, do not release it because ...
>>>
>>> This vote will close in 72 hours, at 2016-09-14T15:10:00Z (this is UTC
>>> time).
>>> ----------
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Stian Soiland-Reyes
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
> Commit ID the tag points at:
>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5

Thanks, Gilles!

I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md and
CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated. Everything else looks
good though!


Checked:

+1 checksums
+1 signatures
+1 source zip vs tar.gz
+1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
+1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
+1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
+1 mvn clean install
+1 LICENSE/NOTICE
+1 javadoc http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apidocs/index.html
+1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math before?)

-1 git tag vs source zip
   source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc, which
I think it's correct to exclude)
-1 binaries vs source
    binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
which I think it's correct to exclude)
-1 README missing from both source and bniaries
-1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front page.
"Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.


Tested with

$ mvn -v
Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix"



--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Gilles Sadowski
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>
> Thanks, Gilles!
>
> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md and
> CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated.

The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway for
the link to the Javadoc, see below).

> Everything else looks
> good though!
>
>
> Checked:
>
> +1 checksums
> +1 signatures
> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)

I don't understand the "if" clause.
Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".

> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
> +1 mvn clean install
> +1 LICENSE/NOTICE
> +1 javadoc
>
> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apidocs/index.html
> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math before?)

No point IMHO.
There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
and most are new.

It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
released as part of CM.

> -1 git tag vs source zip
>    source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
> which
> I think it's correct to exclude)
> -1 binaries vs source
>     binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
> which I think it's correct to exclude)

Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
Commons Math was never released with those files.

I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
Github.

> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front page.

This was noticed by Gary.
The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime (which
I'll do before the announcement).

> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.

That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").


Regards,
Gilles


> Tested with
>
> $ mvn -v
> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
> "unix"


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

garydgregory
"I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
Github."

I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we can
improve it. This needs a separate thread.

It's rare to release without more than one RC.

It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or github, is
wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about overall attention to
detail...

Gary

On Sep 14, 2016 7:32 AM, "Gilles" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Gilles!
>>
>> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md and
>> CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated.
>>
>
> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway for
> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>
> Everything else looks
>> good though!
>>
>>
>> Checked:
>>
>> +1 checksums
>> +1 signatures
>> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
>> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>>
>
> I don't understand the "if" clause.
> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>
> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
>> +1 mvn clean install
>> +1 LICENSE/NOTICE
>> +1 javadoc
>>
>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apidocs/index.html
>> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math before?)
>>
>
> No point IMHO.
> There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
> and most are new.
>
> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
> released as part of CM.
>
> -1 git tag vs source zip
>>    source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc, which
>> I think it's correct to exclude)
>> -1 binaries vs source
>>     binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
>> which I think it's correct to exclude)
>>
>
> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>
> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
> Github.
>
> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
>> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front page.
>>
>
> This was noticed by Gary.
> The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime (which
> I'll do before the announcement).
>
> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.
>>
>
> That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
> in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").
>
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>
> Tested with
>>
>> $ mvn -v
>> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
>> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
>> "unix"
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Stian Soiland-Reyes
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On 14 Sep 2016 3:32 p.m., "Gilles" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway for
> the link to the Javadoc, see below).

I think it's good we keep the practice of reviewing the website as part of
an RC, as otherwise it won't happen, but I would be with you that it should
not be required to cancel an RC just to fix something in src/site. However
we might need a documented routine for how to update the site independently
without spamming the site with SNAPSHOT info (e.g. a branch from the latest
release)

>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
> I don't understand the "if" clause.
> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".

Yes, I noticed. I am special in that I run the apache-rat:check target
outside (to see if it fails), but that does not pick up config within
<reporting> :)

> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
> released as part of CM.

Right, no point then if it has not been released before within Commons.

> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
> Commons Math was never released with those files.

No (hence -0, not -1), just I would prefer them in. In .md format they are
slightly less useful within the downloaded archives than on GitHub, I agree.

(In a perfect world the assembly plugin could run a markdown to text
conversion!)

> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
> Github.

That is your choice as RM as long as the RC get at least +3 :)

If the front page is fixed in git, then I'll change to a +1.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release? (Was: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0)

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by garydgregory
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
> Github."
>
> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we
> can
> improve it. This needs a separate thread.

I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
is a "nightmare".
It was when I did RM CM some years ago and found that some of the
instructions just did not work.  And that what worked either was
not mentioned (only those who "knew" could RM) or was the second
or third alternative way.

For newbies (and everyone else from your own words), that was
indeed the nightmare.

I thus initiated a single-step-by-single-step "howto" for CM that
did work.
And that should have been updated whenever something had to change
to make a release successful.

Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
of the distribution files?

Did we vote on that?

> It's rare to release without more than one RC.

You'd have to wonder why.
"Our release process is a nightmare" is not an answer to that question.

That the instructions which many RM follow are so poor that a single
RC is rare is no reason to infer that any release should suffer from
the same bias.

> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or
> github, is
> wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about overall
> attention to
> detail...

Nothing _looks_ lame.

The files are there, to fill their role on Github and on Apache!

Stian just noticed that they were missing from the distribution
files, and in _that_ context (e.g. someone who want to compile
from source), they do not have any purpose.

Please check your facts before using such a word: I can happily
take that I'm not an expert on random number generators but not
so happily that I don't pay attention to the detail.

I will prepare RC2, but I find it totally disproportionate, as
there was strictly no reason to do it.


Gilles

> Gary
>
> On Sep 14, 2016 7:32 AM, "Gilles" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>>> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles
>>> <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Gilles!
>>>
>>> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md
>>> and
>>> CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated.
>>>
>>
>> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway
>> for
>> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>>
>> Everything else looks
>>> good though!
>>>
>>>
>>> Checked:
>>>
>>> +1 checksums
>>> +1 signatures
>>> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
>>> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
>>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand the "if" clause.
>> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>>
>> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
>>> +1 mvn clean install
>>> +1 LICENSE/NOTICE
>>> +1 javadoc
>>>
>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apidocs/index.html
>>> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math before?)
>>>
>>
>> No point IMHO.
>> There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
>> and most are new.
>>
>> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
>> released as part of CM.
>>
>> -1 git tag vs source zip
>>>    source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
>>> which
>>> I think it's correct to exclude)
>>> -1 binaries vs source
>>>     binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
>>> which I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>
>>
>> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
>> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>>
>> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>> Github.
>>
>> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
>>> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front page.
>>>
>>
>> This was noticed by Gary.
>> The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime (which
>> I'll do before the announcement).
>>
>> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.
>>>
>>
>> That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
>> in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gilles
>>
>>
>> Tested with
>>>
>>> $ mvn -v
>>> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
>>> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
>>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>>> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>>> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64",
>>> family:
>>> "unix"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Gilles Sadowski
In reply to this post by Stian Soiland-Reyes
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 03:17:02 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:

> On 14 Sep 2016 3:32 p.m., "Gilles" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway
>> for
>> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>
> I think it's good we keep the practice of reviewing the website as
> part of
> an RC, as otherwise it won't happen, but I would be with you that it
> should
> not be required to cancel an RC just to fix something in src/site.
> However
> we might need a documented routine for how to update the site
> independently
> without spamming the site with SNAPSHOT info (e.g. a branch from the
> latest
> release)

I'm not sure I got what you mean.
Anyways, it looks like it's something to be fixed at the "COMMONSSITE"
level.

>>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>> I don't understand the "if" clause.
>> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>
> Yes, I noticed. I am special in that I run the apache-rat:check
> target
> outside (to see if it fails), but that does not pick up config within
> <reporting> :)
>
>> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
>> released as part of CM.
>
> Right, no point then if it has not been released before within
> Commons.
>
>> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
>> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>
> No (hence -0, not -1), just I would prefer them in. In .md format
> they are
> slightly less useful within the downloaded archives than on GitHub, I
> agree.

As I pointed out to Gary, your noticing that has misled him
to believe that something ugly would come out of RC1, whereas
it was never agreed that components _must_ ship with those files.
 From what I can only guess at this point, they were added in a
purely aesthetic gesture (toward Github users).

> (In a perfect world the assembly plugin could run a markdown to text
> conversion!)

That would make much sense (for applying a common policy); it
could be part of the generated "RELEASE-NOTES.txt".

>> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>> Github.
>
> That is your choice as RM as long as the RC get at least +3 :)

As I said in my answer to Gary, "my" release process is _not_
hard.
And I'll repeat it, no problem, to prove that point.

> If the front page is fixed in git, then I'll change to a +1.

What do you mean by "front page"?


Gilles


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release?

Stefan Bodewig
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On 2016-09-15, Gilles wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>> Github."

>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we
>> can
>> improve it. This needs a separate thread.

> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
> is a "nightmare".

I don't share this sentiment. There are a quite a few manual steps, but
I don't believe they can be avoided.

Then again I've cut enough releases to know which alternative has worked
for me.

My workflow is different enough that it likely never is the first option
you find in the docs. At least when uploading stuff to Nexus it is not
even listed as alternative at all (I use an upload bundle). I didn't
want to pollute the instructions with even more alternatives.

> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
> of the distribution files?

I don't think anybody decided that. What I'd expect (I didn't
participate in the RNG vote, sorry) is that the source distribution
matches the git tag. And I think this was what Stian brought up. It's
not about the two files but about the difference between tag and
distribution.

We've probably never formally said the two should match either, it's
just what I'd expect. Why would anybody want to exclude anything from
the source distribution that is inside or SCM?

>> It's rare to release without more than one RC.

> You'd have to wonder why.

One thing RMs tend to forget is that there is no veto on a release
vote. If you've got enough +1s you can simply go ahead if you disagree
with the occasional -1.

>> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or
>> github, is wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about
>> overall attention to detail...

> Nothing _looks_ lame.

Please mind Gary's "IMO" in the paragraph above.

"lame" is hardly objective :-)

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0

Stian Soiland-Reyes
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On 15 Sep 2016 12:35 p.m., "Gilles" <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> If the front page is fixed in git, then I'll change to a +1.
>
> What do you mean by "front page"?

That would be src/site/index.xml or so - just to see that it is ready to be
deployed (independent of the tag/RC).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release? (Was: [REMINDER][VOTE][RC1] Release Commons Rng 1.0)

garydgregory
In reply to this post by Gilles Sadowski
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Gilles <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>> Github."
>>
>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we can
>> improve it. This needs a separate thread.
>>
>
> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
> is a "nightmare".
> It was when I did RM CM some years ago and found that some of the
> instructions just did not work.  And that what worked either was
> not mentioned (only those who "knew" could RM) or was the second
> or third alternative way.
>
> For newbies (and everyone else from your own words), that was
> indeed the nightmare.
>
> I thus initiated a single-step-by-single-step "howto" for CM that
> did work.
> And that should have been updated whenever something had to change
> to make a release successful.
>
> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
> of the distribution files?
>
> Did we vote on that?
>
> It's rare to release without more than one RC.
>>
>
> You'd have to wonder why.
> "Our release process is a nightmare" is not an answer to that question.
>
> That the instructions which many RM follow are so poor that a single
> RC is rare is no reason to infer that any release should suffer from
> the same bias.
>
> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or github, is
>> wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about overall attention to
>> detail...
>>
>
> Nothing _looks_ lame.
>

Ahem, the site:

https://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/

says:

"*There isn't any release yet.*
Work is currently performed actively towards release 1.0: See our
issue-tracking system. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-6>"

The site reflects what to expect from the sources, like the reports.

If I checkout the 1.0 source tag (or src zip) and build it, I'm going to
think right away that I got the WRONG tag or wrong src zip because it says
so on the tin "*There isn't any release yet."*

Gary



> The files are there, to fill their role on Github and on Apache!
>
> Stian just noticed that they were missing from the distribution
> files, and in _that_ context (e.g. someone who want to compile
> from source), they do not have any purpose.
>
> Please check your facts before using such a word: I can happily
> take that I'm not an expert on random number generators but not
> so happily that I don't pay attention to the detail.
>
> I will prepare RC2, but I find it totally disproportionate, as
> there was strictly no reason to do it.
>
>
> Gilles
>
> Gary
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2016 7:32 AM, "Gilles" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Gilles!
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md and
>>>> CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway for
>>> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>>>
>>> Everything else looks
>>>
>>>> good though!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Checked:
>>>>
>>>> +1 checksums
>>>> +1 signatures
>>>> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
>>>> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
>>>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't understand the "if" clause.
>>> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>>>
>>> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
>>>
>>>> +1 mvn clean install
>>>> +1 LICENSE/NOTICE
>>>> +1 javadoc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apido
>>>> cs/index.html
>>>> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math before?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No point IMHO.
>>> There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
>>> and most are new.
>>>
>>> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
>>> released as part of CM.
>>>
>>> -1 git tag vs source zip
>>>
>>>>    source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc, which
>>>> I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>> -1 binaries vs source
>>>>     binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
>>>> which I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
>>> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>>>
>>> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>> Github.
>>>
>>> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
>>>
>>>> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This was noticed by Gary.
>>> The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime (which
>>> I'll do before the announcement).
>>>
>>> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
>>> in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Gilles
>>>
>>>
>>> Tested with
>>>
>>>>
>>>> $ mvn -v
>>>> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
>>>> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
>>>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>>>> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>>>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>>>> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
>>>> "unix"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
E-Mail: [hidden email] | [hidden email]
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release?

Gilles Sadowski
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 09:20:14 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:02 AM, Gilles
> <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>> Github."
>>>
>>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we
>>> can
>>> improve it. This needs a separate thread.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
>> is a "nightmare".
>> It was when I did RM CM some years ago and found that some of the
>> instructions just did not work.  And that what worked either was
>> not mentioned (only those who "knew" could RM) or was the second
>> or third alternative way.
>>
>> For newbies (and everyone else from your own words), that was
>> indeed the nightmare.
>>
>> I thus initiated a single-step-by-single-step "howto" for CM that
>> did work.
>> And that should have been updated whenever something had to change
>> to make a release successful.
>>
>> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
>> of the distribution files?
>>
>> Did we vote on that?
>>
>> It's rare to release without more than one RC.
>>>
>>
>> You'd have to wonder why.
>> "Our release process is a nightmare" is not an answer to that
>> question.
>>
>> That the instructions which many RM follow are so poor that a single
>> RC is rare is no reason to infer that any release should suffer from
>> the same bias.
>>
>> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or
>> github, is
>>> wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about overall
>>> attention to
>>> detail...
>>>
>>
>> Nothing _looks_ lame.
>>
>
> Ahem, the site:
>
> https://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/
>
> says:
>
> "*There isn't any release yet.*
> Work is currently performed actively towards release 1.0: See our
> issue-tracking system. <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-6>"
>
> The site reflects what to expect from the sources, like the reports.
>
> If I checkout the 1.0 source tag (or src zip) and build it, I'm going
> to
> think right away that I got the WRONG tag or wrong src zip because it
> says
> so on the tin "*There isn't any release yet."*

What's the point of coming back to something which I acknowledged
when you noticed it the first time:
   http://markmail.org/message/wrdtdaruxzpumrbz
?

Is the site a valid reason?
IMO, no, because it can broken and fixed at any time, not in
relation with a release.

If you think otherwise, then we should set up a vote every time
someone wants to upgrade the web site.

The site is a best effort service for users, not a source release.


Gilles


> Gary
>
>
>
>> The files are there, to fill their role on Github and on Apache!
>>
>> Stian just noticed that they were missing from the distribution
>> files, and in _that_ context (e.g. someone who want to compile
>> from source), they do not have any purpose.
>>
>> Please check your facts before using such a word: I can happily
>> take that I'm not an expert on random number generators but not
>> so happily that I don't pay attention to the detail.
>>
>> I will prepare RC2, but I find it totally disproportionate, as
>> there was strictly no reason to do it.
>>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>> Gary
>>>
>>> On Sep 14, 2016 7:32 AM, "Gilles" <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:53:29 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14 September 2016 at 10:14, Gilles
>>>> <[hidden email]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a [VOTE] for releasing Apache Commons Rng 1.0 (from RC1).
>>>>>> Commit ID the tag points at:
>>>>>>   f8d23082607b9f2c7be7f489eb09627722440ee5
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Gilles!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid my vote is: -0 as the source zip is missing README.md
>>>>> and
>>>>> CONTRIBUTING.md and the site is not updated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The site can, and will be fixed, "live" (as it must be done anyway
>>>> for
>>>> the link to the Javadoc, see below).
>>>>
>>>> Everything else looks
>>>>
>>>>> good though!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Checked:
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 checksums
>>>>> +1 signatures
>>>>> +1 source zip vs tar.gz
>>>>> +1 binaries zip vs tar.gz
>>>>> +1 mvn apache-rat:check (if using ignores from <reporting>)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't understand the "if" clause.
>>>> Report is clean when generated as part of "mvn site".
>>>>
>>>> +1 maven repo matches source (on -src.tar, -src.zip)
>>>>
>>>>> +1 mvn clean install
>>>>> +1 LICENSE/NOTICE
>>>>> +1 javadoc
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://home.apache.org/~erans/commons-rng-1.0-RC1-site/apido
>>>>> cs/index.html
>>>>> +1 RELEASE-NOTES  (Should it mention that this was in math
>>>>> before?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No point IMHO.
>>>> There isn't a single file that was not significantly changed
>>>> and most are new.
>>>>
>>>> It was developed within the CM repository but the code was never
>>>> released as part of CM.
>>>>
>>>> -1 git tag vs source zip
>>>>
>>>>>    source zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and doc,
>>>>> which
>>>>> I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>>> -1 binaries vs source
>>>>>     binaries zip is missing README.md and CONTRIBUTING.md (and
>>>>> doc,
>>>>> which I think it's correct to exclude)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Are those a mandatory part of the distribution?
>>>> Commons Math was never released with those files.
>>>>
>>>> I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>>> Github.
>>>>
>>>> -1 README missing from both source and bniaries
>>>>
>>>>> -1 site stlil says "There isn't any release yet" etc on front
>>>>> page.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This was noticed by Gary.
>>>> The site is not part of the release and can be fixed anytime
>>>> (which
>>>> I'll do before the announcement).
>>>>
>>>> "Javadoc 1.0" link in menu is broken.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That is always the case; it is also to be fixed when the files are
>>>> in their proper place (i.e. not in the RM's "~/public_html").
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Gilles
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tested with
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> $ mvn -v
>>>>> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
>>>>> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
>>>>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>>>>> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>>>>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>>>>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>>>>> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-36-generic", arch: "amd64",
>>>>> family:
>>>>> "unix"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release?

Stefan Bodewig
On 2016-09-16, Gilles wrote:

> Is the site a valid reason?

to cancel a release? IMHO no.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ALL] Valid reasons for blocking a release?

Stian Soiland-Reyes
In reply to this post by Stefan Bodewig
I don't think a valid site or the odd missing file is enough to cancel
a release - but if there are multiple such issues it should also be
taken into consideration.

Even the odd -1 vote can be ignored if there are enough positive votes.

On 15 September 2016 at 12:42, Stefan Bodewig <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2016-09-15, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:41:01 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> "I'd rather not redo the release steps just for files that are
>>> meaningful only when browsing the code repository mirror at
>>> Github."
>
>>> I know our release process is a pain, so maybe we should see if we
>>> can
>>> improve it. This needs a separate thread.
>
>> I'm not the one who complains regularly that the release process
>> is a "nightmare".
>
> I don't share this sentiment. There are a quite a few manual steps, but
> I don't believe they can be avoided.
>
> Then again I've cut enough releases to know which alternative has worked
> for me.
>
> My workflow is different enough that it likely never is the first option
> you find in the docs. At least when uploading stuff to Nexus it is not
> even listed as alternative at all (I use an upload bundle). I didn't
> want to pollute the instructions with even more alternatives.
>
>> Who decided that "README.md" and "CONTRIBUTING.md" _had_ to be part
>> of the distribution files?
>
> I don't think anybody decided that. What I'd expect (I didn't
> participate in the RNG vote, sorry) is that the source distribution
> matches the git tag. And I think this was what Stian brought up. It's
> not about the two files but about the difference between tag and
> distribution.
>
> We've probably never formally said the two should match either, it's
> just what I'd expect. Why would anybody want to exclude anything from
> the source distribution that is inside or SCM?
>
>>> It's rare to release without more than one RC.
>
>> You'd have to wonder why.
>
> One thing RMs tend to forget is that there is no veto on a release
> vote. If you've got enough +1s you can simply go ahead if you disagree
> with the occasional -1.
>
>>> It looks pretty lame IMO if the first thing you see, our site or
>>> github, is wrong or missing info. It could make one wonder about
>>> overall attention to detail...
>
>> Nothing _looks_ lame.
>
> Please mind Gary's "IMO" in the paragraph above.
>
> "lame" is hardly objective :-)
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>



--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]