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: Insanity. Apache Incubator should be about education
Date Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:41:14 GMT
With a few days of additional information now available, I'll stick my  
finger into the soup again.

What the incubator wants/needs/requires is that the community  
understand how to make and vote on a release,

and that the release conforms to Apache legal standards.

I would be happy to split these two items for the subversion podling  
as follows:

1. Have the podling make and vote, on the Apache mailing list, on a  
non-Apache branded release (some maintenance release that might be  
upcoming) that's made outside Apache. This is the process thing, that  
without my going through the existing archives, I assume has been done  
countless times without any Apache oversight and should simply  
demonstrate to everyone how the community works.

2. Have the podling make an Apache-branded tarball with signatures for  
legal review by the incubator. This is the thing that may very well  
contain some surprises (some unexpected LGPL dependency, missing  
license header file, or some such). There are people here who pick  
nits as entertainment. ;-)


P.S. It was never my intent that the incubator would require the  
subversion community to release some crap for the sake of releasing  
some crap.

On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 22:05, Jukka Zitting  
> <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Greg Stein <> wrote:
>>> Plan: raise an issue, and we fix it.
>>> Not sure what else you're looking for.
>> I was just pointing out that if you want to do the release review
>> based on an existing 1.6.x release, I wouldn't expect it to be fully
>> compliant with Apache policies (license headers, etc.) and would
>> accept a plan on how those issues will be (or already are being)
>> resolved in the first Apache release of Subversion (1.7.0?). To me
>> that would satisfy the release-related exit criteria we have.
>> I'm also fine with the other proposed ways of satisfying or waiving
>> those exit criteria.
> Sigh. You've just looped right back around.
> I offered a demonstration of the 1.6.x releases as a demonstration of
> our *process*. But that was deemed unacceptable.
> The Apache-branded stuff is trunk or 1.7, which has no scheduled
> release. "No release" was deemed unacceptable.
> If you want to review *bits* rather than *release process*, then you
> can take a look at trunk/ or the nightlies that we'll soon produce. If
> you want release process *and* Apache-branding, then the svn community
> is not prepared to provide that, nor do I think it necessary (see the
> deferred vote for waiving a release).
> But your above paragraph is some conflation of release practices,
> legal review, and how this fits into graduation requirements. And I
> just got done with a frustrating several days on that issue. What do
> you want?
> ugh,
> -g
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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

View raw message