On 4/4/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 4, 2007, at 1:54 PM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
<snip>
> IMHO we need to alter the process so that we have an explicit audit > when the community feels (by vote) that it has a build process in > place. the code doesn't need to be ready but the build does and the > codebase needs to be ready for audit. IMHO the current process is fine but needs to be documented better.
i agree that we need better documentation but i'm really not getting the cycles ATM. i'd hoped that other people would step up and push it forward since this is vital work.
Podlings should be encouraged to release stuff that they think is usable outside their small world of developers who check out from svn and build from source. The incubator is set up to review and approve releases without passing judgement on the usability, just the "legality".
i've been approaching this problem from the wrong perspective most critical issues i encounter are issues with source. the source can be checked at any time. potential issues with source should be addressed as soon as possible. (and yes, i know henri arrived here long before me.) the best approach would be to run RAT on the trunks of all incubating podlings. unfortunately this means finding the cycles to add the required features to RAT and i'm likely to be very short of energy in the next few months :-/ - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
