<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> <bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
>>>> release, but the next release should fix that.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is one of those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
>>> legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
>>> more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
>>> likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
>>> improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
>>
>>
>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>> not do so and re-roll?
+1
> One "shortcut" that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
> (and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
> would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
> provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
> and that rest of the package had already met with general approval.
+1
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
No comments:
Post a Comment