incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines for distribution of incubating artefacts on other platforms
Date Wed, 13 Feb 2019 16:54:00 GMT
Weex Mentor here.  Answers inline:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:36 AM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > We distribute artefacts through *CocoaPods*


I'm with Justin: I'm not familiar with this either, but my first skim
across their information doesn't indicate they'd be fundamentally different
than the other distribution methods.  Would you like write access to the
instructions so that you can add them?


> > and *Gradle* channel


Do you mean maven here?  These lines in gradle:

dependencies {
    ...
    // weex sdk and fastjson

    compile 'com.taobao.android:weex_sdk:0.18.0@aar'
}

draw from a maven repository.

Maven is listed in our instructions.

> Does this mean that we need a vote even for distribution of unreleased
> > material <https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#unreleased>?
>
> You are not allowed to distribute unreleased material outside the
> developer community. [1] I would read that as users being outside the
> developer community.
>

I would reserve judgement here.  If it's a limited circle of users who are
consistently QAing your stuff, I'd see them as contributors to the
project.  In this case, you should also consider making these people
committers.  They are important to the success of your project.


> > Incubator-weex had used unofficial release without vote to get quick
> > feedback from users before we knew it could break the rule of Apache
> > release. *According to my understanding, any format of release on any
> > platform needs a vote even if it is unofficial, snapshot, nightly build
> and
> > etc..* Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Well a snapshots shot or nightly may be OK if it a) not use as a
> substitute for not voting b) clearly marked so a user wouldn’t assume it a
> release and c) not placed in the main place user go to to get it. I would
> guess that the above doesn’t qualify but check with your mentors.
>

Users can be involved in your QA process.  If select users are downloading
your stuff and giving feedback, that's fine.  However if you've  been
advertising your stuff more broadly (for example by referencing unreleased
versions it in your getting started guide), you've been "breaking the
rules".

If that's the case, I'm fairly certain you didn't intend to.  So it should
be easy to fix.  In the case of the website example: just revert the
website examples to reference properly released versions.

If you have any questions, I'm here to help.

Best Regards,
Myrle
Weex Mentor

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