incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luke Han <luke...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Looking for Champion
Date Wed, 20 Jun 2018 00:33:19 GMT
Incubating progress is something how to fix such issue, there's no need
such plan at this moment

Ryan Blue <rblue@netflix.com.invalid>于2018年6月19日周二 上午4:13写道:

> Okay, then let me rephrase: I would like to see a plan in the Palo proposal
> for a licensing scrub to be done before graduation.
>
> I'm still a little skeptical about this practice because the Incubator PMC
> validates the release on behalf of the foundation, but I think that's a
> separate issue to consider that doesn't need to distract on this Palo
> thread. Thanks for the explanation, Greg!
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Heya Ryan,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 2:39 PM Ryan Blue <rblue@netflix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > we have allowed (and IMO should continue) podlings to have licensing
> >> issues during their incubator releases
> >>
> >> Thanks for pointing this out, Greg. I wasn't aware of this and have
> >> always had releases fail when we discover licensing issues. I think
> there's
> >> a significant risk of license problems, so I had assumed we would
> require a
> >> thorough scrub before the first release.
> >>
> >> What's the argument for finishing this work before graduation rather
> than
> >> first release? Isn't the release a product for which the ASF is legally
> >> responsible? Given that we fail releases for known license issues,
> >> shouldn't we also be more careful when we know there are likely to be
> >> issues?
> >>
> >
> > This is why incubator releases have a disclaimer. It gives them time to
> > work through dependency and licensing issues, even while they're testing
> > their release process with our KEYS and distribution framework. So the
> > "argument" is simply to allow the podling to multitask, rather than gate
> > one of their activities.
> >
> > When you really want to lift the cover, there isn't a problem if a
> podling
> > releases (say) a hard LGPL dependency. That's just a policy choice of the
> > Foundation, to avoid such dependencies. We don't like it, and maybe some
> > messed up licensing downstream, possibly, for somebody to tease apart.
> But
> > historically, the Incubator has let these issues slide for a while, yet
> > gate on graduation.
> >
> > I also feel that podling releases are in a grey area, that don't truly
> > have the full backing of the ASF (thus the disclaimer, and them not
> being a
> > TLP; although technically the Apache Incubator is the stand-in PMC behind
> > the release).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Ryan Blue
> Software Engineer
> Netflix
>

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