incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: SVN move
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:56:44 GMT

On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2008, at 2:47 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <> wrote:
>>>> Can you provide one example?  Just curious....
>>> While it was incubating, Wicket did a few non-ASF releases on their
>>> old project site, to minimize disruption for their existing users
>>> while they were repackaging and cleaning up for an ASF release.
>> And even after we had graduated. Wicket 1.2.7 (the final maintenance
>> release for the 1.2 branch) was created in last March. We didn't use
>> the Apache mirroring system and put a disclaimer in it that the
>> release was non-Apache. [1]
> I haven't been following the Wicket history too closely.   I assume  
> that this branch is in the ASF Subversion repository.
> So is it safe to say that the Wicket 1.2 branch is a pre-incubation  
> branch?  What changes were made with regards to ASF/Incubator  
> policy?  I'm wondering if this branch stayed the same, e.g. old  
> package names, or were there changes made to this branch to bring it  
> in line with ASF policies.
>> This is a service we provide for our users that were with us before  
>> we
>> moved to apache and are counting on us to provide support on their
>> production systems. However, since we are a volunteer effort with
>> limited resources, we have discontinued to support the 1.2 branch
>> (though we will act on security issues) and now focus on Apache
>> software :).
>>> I haven't followed all of this discussion, but IIUC that's a  
>>> similar situation.
>> Yep, and it really is a problem IMO when incoming *open source*
>> projects have to ditch their collected history. If we care about code
>> provenance, having the full history available is best.
> Keeping the history to maintain code provenance is one thing, and a  
> good thing.  Maintaining and making non-ASF releases on ASF  
> infrastructure is another.  It seems that the latter has been done  
> before, e.g. Wicket.  Are their any guidelines for doing this?

Can anyone confirm the above statements and provide any guidelines?


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

View raw message