incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luciano Resende <>
Subject Re: binary release artifacts
Date Mon, 23 Sep 2013 20:45:24 GMT
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Marvin Humphrey <>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:44 AM, ant elder <> wrote:
> > Perhaps, but AFAICT the existing documentation is either incorrect,
> > lacking, or ambiguous so i've raised LEGAL-178 to clarify.
> To close the loop, LEGAL-178 has been resolved with a determination that
> it's
> up to the Incubator PMC whether to leave the Chukwa binary artifacts in
> place,
> since they do not violate either licensing or ASF policy.  Policy regarding
> location of LICENSE/NOTICE applies only to official Apache releases, and
> convenience binaries are not official releases.
> With that clarification in hand...
> In my opinion, violating the social norm regarding placement of
> at the top level of META-INF/ is the kind of licensing documentation bug
> which
> we would ordinarily let pass but ask podlings to fix on subsequent
> releases.
> I don't think that particular problem rises to the level where the
> artifacts
> need to be removed at this late date.
> Additionally, while there were irregularities surrounding the VOTE threads
> for Chukwa 0.5.0 -- closer inspection reveals that binaries were presented
> for
> some release candidates but not others -- it no longer seems to me as
> though
> the situation is far enough outside the norm to require removal.  The norm
> being: whether anybody performs any quality control at all on a given
> convenenience binary is a crapshoot.

Thanks for the summary Marvin,  how about we take the chance to update our
policy/documentation to clarify the social norm regarding placement of
LICENSE/NOTICE in the top level of a distribution but also clarify that,
any artifact being release by an Apache Project should be reviewed and
voted, as there were some suggestions on this thread that this was not the
case. If we can't clarify that on ASF level, at least we can clarify that
on the IPMC level.

Luciano Resende

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message