incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Shiro version 1.0.0-incubating
Date Wed, 26 May 2010 16:45:35 GMT
On 26/05/2010, Les Hazlewood <> wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:12 AM, sebb <> wrote:
>  > The staging site appeared to be part of the vote as it was not
>  > specifically excluded.
> This was a mistake - it probably should have been excluded.  AFAICT,
>  staging sites are _not_ considered release artifacts because they're
>  never shipped/distributed.  It is there for reference only.
>  > Regardless, I think it's important that when an Incubator project
>  > wants to do a release, consumers need to be fully aware that it is not
>  > a normal ASF release. Seems to me that this is why the branding
>  > guidelines are there.
>  > I agree that there are some website issues that have no bearing on a release.
>  >
>  > However IMO ensuring that Incubator projects are clearly identified as
>  > such is fundamental to allowing releases from Incubator projects.
> We reference the Incubator in a lot of places on the site.  And we'll
>  work on making that more prevalent as soon as possible, but as I
>  understand it, this is not considered release criteria.  Until it is,
>  it doesn't seem that a release should be prohibited.

If anything, I would see it as a pre-release criterion

>  The only thing that should prevent a release IMO would be violations
>  of _concrete_ release criteria.  Saying that "The Incubator isn't
>  mentioned in a prevalent area of the website", while maybe true, is a
>  nebulous statement - it is purely based on interpretation.
>  I think it's fine to have branding as release criteria, but it needs
>  to be explicit so we can know exactly what the problem is and how to
>  fix it (e.g. "Incubator must be linked to from the page graphic
>  header" or "Must be linked as a root-level navigation element in the
>  site's nav bar", etc).  Until that happens, it is unfair to prevent a
>  release based on personal interpretation when all other criteria have
>  been met.

Sure that's precisely what
in particular

is all about.

This is very similar to Ant Elder's point about the missing
disclaimers in the release materials.

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

View raw message