incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Kulp <>
Subject Re: Deploying Incubator Maven Artifacts [was Re: [VOTE] Apache Incubator CXF 2.0-M1 Release (RC 3)]
Date Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:33:06 GMT

On Thursday 07 December 2006 19:59, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Dec 7, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
> > I must be missing something. If they aren't voted on, how do you know
> > if they're valid and meet release requirements?
> It is impossible to verify that in a binary.  We have to trust the
> person building it to do so according to an approved script.  If people
> want to push a given set of binaries through a QA process and vote on
> the results, more power to 'em -- anything posted to our webservers is
> subject to voting if desired.  However, they are just fooling themselves
> if they think testing the binary is sufficient to verify that the binary
> actually matches the source version.
> "Real" open source developers build their own. ;-)

So by this theory, we could have just called a vote on the source/binary 
distributions in which case the javadoc issue would not have appeared at all.  
(that javadoc jar doesn't appear there)  Correct?   Thus, if the vote passed 
on that, we could then proceed to "mvn deploy" which would have resulted in 
the javadoc jar without the notice/license in it being put in the Maven 
repository for the world to use.

I'm just trying to clarify this for future reference.   I personally think 
that's a bad practice, but if that's OK for Apache, fine.   We'll keep that 
in mind for the future. 

J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
P: 781-902-8727    C: 508-380-7194

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

View raw message