incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject [policy] where incubation notices should live (was: Re: [VOTE] Apache CXF 2.0-M1 Incubating Release)
Date Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:06:18 GMT
On Dec 1, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:10 AM, Martin Ritchie wrote:
>> On 01/12/06, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 2006, at 5:03 PM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>> > What Jim pointed out was docs/release_notes.txt -- it should  
>>> probably include the incubator disclaimer.
>>> Yes. There is nothing in that file to indicate incubation.
>>> It's an important doc, so the fact of incubation
>>> should be clear.
>> So are we saying that having a DISCLAIMER file and the disclaimer in
>> the README at the top level is not "clear" enough or does "all
>> documentation" need to have the disclaimer as in all documentation
>> files?

I'm not saying that.

>> Would be good to clear this up and update the Disclaimer section to
>> say exactly where the specified disclaimer text should be put.

*shrug*. IMHO podling communities can (and should) think for  
themselves a little...this stuff needs to be clear to the people that  
download the stuff, you're responsible for assuring that...details of  
doing that may depend on, ehm, other details.

> This is the RELEASE NOTES for God's sake! Do you really
> think that a document that details the release notes
> for a codebase should not specify that the codebase
> is in Incubation.

For the record, I'm personally not too fussed. Those disclaimers end  
up in a gazillion places already. It's kinda hard already to get to a  
release notes file without ignoring them once or twice.

Secondly, this is again an example of a mid-flight policy change/ 
added requirement. Let's continue to try not to have those, please,  
it confuses, slows things down and can be frustrating for the podling  



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message