incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Distribution management
Date Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:52:02 GMT
----- Original Message ----

> From: Kevin Clark <>
> To:
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 11:02:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Distribution management
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > At Apache we do our work where it can be inspected by
> > the public while it is in progress.  That work, carried
> > out in the subversion repository, is not to be publicized
> > to end users as a place to pick up the latest and greatest
> > distribution of our software.  End users ALWAYS need to
> > be directed to formally approved releases.  Not only does
> > that give the project space to do active development on
> > branches / trunk that hasn't been put to a vote yet, it
> > means that users have clear guidelines where the project
> > is willing to extend whatever stability promises it wishes
> > to make to it's users.
> >
> > The foundation does not consider subversion as a valid
> > distribution mechanism for software releases.  In fact
> > we don't expect software in subversion to be vetted for
> > licensing issues until it comes time for a release, so
> > please do not point end users to svn!
> >
> I'm glad you have a way you like to do things "at Apache".

It's not my way, it's foundation policy, and part of what I'm paid to do
is enforce it. For details on the policy see

I'll quote the relevant section for you: 

  What Is A Release? 

"Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
group that owns it.  In our case, that means any publication outside
the group of people on the product dev list.  If the general public is being
instructed to download a package, then that package has been released.
Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release.
How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below."
Things that violate the release policy are things like download pages
on the website that point at subversion instead of an actual vetted release
(something Thrift has continued to do despite gentle nudging by the IPMC).

> But we're not children and we don't owe you anything. When you treat
> us like this you discourage involvement and drive people away from 
> the Apache process.

I'm not exactly sure who we and you are but I'll assume you mean we thrift devs
and you joes.  I'll remind you I started getting involved in Thrift after
Leo Simons sent this list a gentle prodding to fix the download page.  Ignoring
him was strike 1.  I sent you guys a patch to address your incorrect LICENSE
document in THRIFT-387, in the hopes we could cut a release in short order after the legal
issues were addressed.  Ignoring me was strike 2.  I'm getting the impression that you guys
have also decided to ignore Todd Lipcom, who put in considerable effort into a license audit
in THRIFT-622.

> I'm sure people are perfectly willing to direct others that subversion
> revisions aren't releases, so don't be an jerk about it.

That isn't the point.  If you tell users this is where the software is that they should use,
you are releasing it to them: the lack of packaging or versioning on the software makes no
difference.  Subversion is for people who wish to participate in project development, not
for end users.  The fact
is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be addressed.


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

View raw message