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 17:49:23 GMT

On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:

> On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:
>>>> Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
>>>> infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,  
>>>> maintain,
>>>> and release non-ASF releases.  To be sure in the case of  
>>>> JSecurity the final
>>>> artifacts will not use the ASF mirrors but that does not  hide  
>>>> the fact that
>>>> they intend to build and maintain non-ASF releases exclusively  
>>>> using our
>>>> infrastructure.
>>>> Craig says that's fine.
>>>> I think that they should release and maintain their new and  
>>>> earlier non-ASF
>>>> releases on the infrastructure that they currently have or else  
>>>> use ours and
>>>> follow the ASF/Incubator guidelines.
>>> If it turns out that it is *not* OK to do this (use ASF  
>>> infrastructure
>>> exclusively to maintain our few remaining non-ASF releases), I'm  
>>> perfectly
>>> ok with that and of course would respect the Incubator's wishes -  
>>> but I
>>> myself would ask our current JSecurity team to delay the code  
>>> import into
>>> the ASF.
>>> I don't think I would be willing to perform code modifications and  
>>> patches
>>> for the next Release Candidate release(s) and maybe the few point  
>>> releases
>>> that might follow on two different repositories.  That's a  
>>> nightmare to
>>> maintain - "Did I apply this patch to project-from-server-A and
>>> project-from-server-B?  Hrm.. I can't remember if I JavaDoc'd that  
>>> method
>>> correctly in both locations...".  No thanks :)
>>> Sure, this might delay our incubation process another few weeks or  
>>> even a
>>> month or two, but I don't mind that at all - I feel comfortable that
>>> JSecurity will succeed at the ASF, so I don't feel a little extra  
>>> delay
>>> would hurt things for us much...  This is much less painful IMO than
>>> manually mantaining code in two separate locations.
>> Let's turn this around and look at it from a different light.   
>> What's stopping us from doing a 0.9.0 release in the incubator?   
>> I'm guessing that you need the packages to be the same?
> I don't quite follow what you are proposing. Can you elaborate the  
> details, please?

The 0.9.0 release gets done following ASF/Incubator procedures which  
includes, changing package names to org.apache.jsecurity, making sure  
it passes RAT, the PPMC must vote and it passes with at least 3  
binding votes, etc.


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

View raw message