incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jukka Zitting <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] BOM and supported platforms for Bigtop 0.4.0
Date Fri, 04 May 2012 19:52:24 GMT

I don't understand the BigTop use cases and release model in too much
detail to have very specific or hard opinions on this, but here's a
few high-level observations that hopefully are useful for this

* AFAICT there's no immediate release that's being blocked by this
discussion, so everyone can calm down. An issue was brought up, it's
being discussed and I'm sure we'll soon enough have a solution that
everyone is happy about.

* It sounds like BigTop is doing something that few Apache projects
have done before. Thus it's fine to question whether and to what
extent existing rules apply. However, at the same time it's good to
acknowledge that new rules and consensus on a new interpretation of
existing rules may be needed for something like this. It's natural for
this process to take some time and involve some misunderstandings
along the way.

* The convenience binaries many projects are providing are normally
the result of building the respective source release (together with
any required third party dependencies). As a general rule it should be
possible for anyone to reproduce equivalent binaries by following the
build instructions included in the source release.

* As a recent addition, some projects have started providing also
convenience packages containing such dependencies required by the
source build as described above. In both cases the contents of all
such binary packages should be properly signed and contain appropriate

* As far as I can tell from the discussion, the BigTop repos directory
[1] doesn't neatly fit into either of the above categories. I guess
the key question here is whether the purpose of BigTop is to be a
particular, tested combination of upstream projects or rather a tool
for testing and building such combinations. (Or perhaps something else

* If the former, then each subdirectory of [1] falls fairly
conveniently into the traditional concept of convenience binaries
built from the source release. The only extra thing you'd need is a
proper set of license metadata and signatures for the binaries.

* If the latter, it seems to me that it isn't BigTop that should be
distributing the packages in [1]. Instead each upstream project should
using BigTop as a tool to produce such packages as a part of their own
release processes.

* In that case there might still be a role for BigTop to provide a
central repository for such easily consumable upstream releases. This
would be somewhat similar to the discussions that took place a few
years ago about whether and how the ASF could host something like the
central Maven repository.



Jukka Zitting

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

View raw message