[GRASS-PSC] [GRASS-dev] RFC4 discussion call
hmitaso at ncsu.edu
Mon Dec 29 09:02:56 PST 2014
I agree with Maris that no feedback should be interpreted as agreement.
A statement : "if there are no further comments or feedback for the 7 days, RC1 will be released on XXX date"
may help in case somebody has some issues and was just delaying posting them.
Also for the PSC, it appears that the release procedure is ready to be voted on?
On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:11 AM, Maris Nartiss wrote:
> IMHO "lack of answer" in a transparent procedure with reasonable
> response windows just means "carry on, everyone agrees". Having a
> fixed last date for comments might force someone to say something (or
> used as an argument for STFU later).
> Just my 0.02,
> 2014-12-29 9:50 GMT+02:00 Markus Neteler <neteler at osgeo.org>:
>> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Moritz Lennert
>> <mlennert at club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>>> On 24/11/14 14:38, Martin Landa wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>> as we are closer and closer to GRASS 7 release I would like to open
>>>> discussion related to "Release procedure" - RFC4 . Ideally (I would
>>>> say) it would make sense to find a way how accept such procedure
>>>> before we start with GRASS RCs...
>>>> Thanks for your feedback in advance! Martin
>>>>  http://trac.osgeo.org/grass/wiki/RFC/4_ReleaseProcedure
>>> Rereading it I found parts that didn't seem clear, so I reordered the
>>> sentences slightly to make the meaning clearer.
>> While this is all nice, I am strongly lacking support in the day to
>> day release management.
>> Again the RC1 feedback is actually 0 (zero).
>> The "General Procedure" in the document is lacking answers to what to
>> do if no or no reasonable feedback occurs.
>> Any ideas? We are in soft freeze for months.
>> grass-dev mailing list
>> grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> grass-dev mailing list
> grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the grass-psc