incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <>
Subject Re: discussion of release of Apache Wicket 1.3.0-incubating-alpha
Date Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:39:35 GMT
On Apr 4, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On 4/4/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <> wrote:
>> If there have been changes since the release was cut, a new release
>> must IMHO be created, so that people can vote (on the wicket lists
>> first, and then come back here) on the correct one.
> Like Gwyn said, we'd rather wait until *all* feedback is delivered,
> before starting a spam action on this list to get the release vetted.

Nothing wrong with that approach.

> Given the lack of time of one of the most trustworthy IPMC members,
> this checking takes longer than expected, but we are willing to wait
> (not too long, mind you) until we get more feedback.

Yeah there's a bit of an issue here. Vetting releases isn't exactly  
fun or easy work to do, and sometimes it can be quite a lot of work  
too. Robert deserves a medal, but that's still not a sustainable  

>> Also, I'm not too convinced of the "release that is not meant for
>> public consumption" thing - according to the ASF's definition,
>> binaries do not constitute a release unless they're meant for public
>> consumption.
> This is not what (most) of the mentors and IPMC members here have
> voiced in the past.

Yeah, we know, we sort-of suck at communicating these things  
consistently. It stems from misunderstandings of what our legal  
processes are and how things are meant to work. Every now and then  
someone who has some more understanding of the legal bits joins in  
some discussion to correct some of the understanding of some of the  
IPMC, and then the focus of some of the communication changes.  
Recently Roy re-explained some of this.

> In order to graduate, a podling is required to
> build a release, if only it is a developer only release (take the
> harmony podling as an example).

I'm not convinced we actually say (or have always consistently said)  
"REQUIRED to build a release". IIRC Apache Directory might have  
graduated without building a release.


The incubator has not liked its own release process and rules for a  
while, which I guess is why they keep changing. It's apparently just  
really hard to come up with better processes.

Rest assured, I believe wicket's right on track and doing this "get  
the legal bits reviewed and then do a 'real' release" is a fine idea.  
I know you have users waiting for a final release. (given we're  
running something called wicket-1.3-incubating-r492460-p12.jar in  
production over here!)

There's just this one little tidbit - if the IPMC votes to *release*  
something, that something should then actually be released. "Release"  
has a specific meaning and we (have to) do "distribution at no charge  
to the general public" of them. I guess it's all in a name.

The alternative is to *not* release something, and then there should  
not be a release vote, but a different kind of vote, or no vote at all.

A release can be called wicket-incubating-DO_NOT_USE_THIS_CODE-this- and we can take care  
to not publicize that we release things, but if it is a release, it  
still needs to be distributed to the general public. And then after  
that we can pull the release so it exists only on  
If we don't do it that way we all get very confused.

Yes, that does mean that what we did process-wise with the ofbiz  
snapshot release

was a bit wrong. *shrug*. Seems we did it right wth the harmony  
snapshot releases though.


Meet me for beer at ApacheCon Europe:

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

View raw message