incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: discussion of release of Apache Wicket 1.3.0-incubating-alpha
Date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 03:44:45 GMT
Hi Niclas,

On Apr 4, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> On Thursday 05 April 2007 05:08, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> I have a hard time understanding how a podling can consider itself
>> ready for graduation without having anything worth sharing, and don't
>> understand what the point is of having an audit of anything short of
>> a build artifact.
> Assuming for a second that you are not speaking of Wicket;
> A podling is ready to graduate when the community operates  
> TheApacheWay and
> has cleared the legal hurdles, not when it has something that can  
> be used by
> kreti & pleti, the general public.

I was very very careful to use the words "without having anything  
worth sharing" by which I do not mean the hoi polloi. Sharing work  
efforts doesn't mean shrink-wrapped.

But please send a link to the meaning of kreti & pleti! I love  
learning new idioms and it's not in the first 20 Google hits. :-(

> Often the "usefulness" comes before the community and legalities,  
> but from the
> Incubator's point of view, it is not a concern.

I agree. The Incubator is responsible for guiding the podling in the  
Apache Way and not for passing judgement on the usefulness of the  
podlings' efforts. That's best judged by the community.
> So, I would claim that it is definately a positive sign that a  
> podling is able
> to cut a 'non-functional' release, or a 'functional' release that  
> explicitly
> will not be supported, future-proof and having other qualities  
> typically
> expected from Apache projects.

I agree. That's how I understand what the "incubating" disclaimers  
are all about. "Take a look if you like, use it if you choose, but  
don't assume it's going to be any better than it is right now."

But I was specifically objecting to a proposal that a release audit  
would be a good addition to the incubator process:
>> IMHO we need to alter the process so that we have an explicit audit
>> when the community feels (by vote) that it has a build process in
>> place. the code doesn't need to be ready but the build does and the
>> codebase needs to be ready for audit.
>> - robert
I'm wondering if there really is a need for YAP (yet another process)  
to handle a release by a podling. There are lots of ways of labeling  
a podling release, and you can indicate whether you want folks to try  
it out or just look at its release artifacts.  But it still has to  
look like a release with disclaimers, licenses, and ip clearances  

I think the incubator is really more concerned about a podling that  
appears to claim it's a real Apache project when it's still just in  

Speaking specifically of Wicket now, I think it's great that the  
community has progressed to the point of wanting to demonstrate that  
they know how to release stuff, even though it isn't ready for  
general use. And I think that 1.3.0-incubating-alpha has enough  
disclaimers in it to scare off most casual prospective users.

For what it's worth,

+1 for going through the release process for Wicket with the  
disclaimers that the Wicket team has discussed... It looks like they  
are "getting it".


> Cheers
> -- 
> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
> I  live here;
> I  work here;
> I relax here;
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
408 276-5638
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message