On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 5:25 AM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: > ...is there any guidance for how to review a release that contains source and > binary tar-balls..
>... As a reviewer, how am I to vote on this release candidate?... When that happens I just vote on the source archive and include it's digest D in my vote - "I am +1 on the release of the source archive having digest D". And then just verify the digests and signatures of the binaries, considering them as attachments to the release, and indicate that I checked that in my vote. I see this as a two-level thing: a) The source release is an Act of the Foundation, it is what the foundation produces b) For the binaries, the PMC states that it thinks they are good and declares that the published digests and signatures are the correct ones. The Foundation does not state anything about them - use at your own risk but in practice that risk is very low if the PMC members collectively recommend using them. That's not very different from what other open source projects do - we need a) for our legal shield but b) is exactly like random open source projects operate. You have to trust an open source project when you use their binaries, and you can use digests and signatures to verify that those binaries are the same that everyone else uses - I don't think anyone provides more guarantees than that, except when you pay for someone to state that those binaries are good. If people agree with this view we might need to explain this better, "unofficial" does not mean much, this two-level view might be more useful. -Bertrand --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
