I've taken a stab at incorporating this sentiment into a new guide I'm working on, rather than updating the existing release guides. Explained in the other email.
Take a look and let me know if you feel I've misstated anything. John On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 5:04 PM Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote: > On 27 December 2016 at 20:44, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> > wrote: > > I'd rather not sanctify exceptions with a precise list, but rather stop > at: > > > > "During incubation, a podling's release package may not be perfect. It > > ... package may not be fully in compliance with [ASF release > policy](https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html). > > > will be up to mentors and IPMC members > > to define the appropriate leeway". > > ... as long as it is [legal](https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html). > > > +1 to a more abstract text - as long as the podling release is legally > sound (e.g. does not include material we can't distribute under ASF > license) we can still permit it, even if it's not according to policy. > > However it would be a judgement per podling - if a podling has been > told for two releases for instance to fix their NOTICE, then a third > release might be downvoted (not blocked) for that reason. It could > also happen that an issue is not identified until later - so it's not > easy to write it down as strict rules - and I think we've the current > practice is about right. Some "just enough" formalizing of that > practice, as Roman proposes, will help keep it along those lines also > for the future. > > -- > Stian Soiland-Reyes > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
