incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2015 23:26:31 GMT

Just catching up on this thread. Going back a bit.

>>   #2 The #1 goal is achieved via mentorship. In fact mentorship is
>> not even required  as the case of Zest (and hopeful Yetus soon) demonstrated.

Not to pick on Zest but a casual glance at the current source release shows it contains a
couple of jars and the Apache LICENSE is incomplete. I know nothing about Zest and these are
probably (easily fixed) minor issues, but it does show that having someone outside your project
reviewing releases can be useful.

If we as some people seem to be suggesting just announce podling releases on this list and
not have an IPMC vote it seems to me we would be more likely to have releases with issues
in them. Some of these would be minor and probably not matter but it does increase the risk.
And if an issue is found what do we do about the previous releases? It seems( that checking
often and early gives better results.

Automated tools can certainly find some issues but they IMO are never going to find every
issue. How can an automated tool easily know that cat image is under copyright? Or that the
original license header has been replaced with an Apache one on a file? Tools like this do
exists but are probably prohibitive cost wise and time wise to implement across Apache.

I certainly think having clearer policy documentation would help and like Bertrands release
checklist idea, but even having clear documentation (e.g. [1]) doesn’t seem to solve all
issues. I can only assume that it comes down to we’re a bunch of volunteers and our time
and focus is sometimes a little scattered so stuff sometimes gets missed. 



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

View raw message