incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Hen <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [IMPORTANT] Board proposal on podling releases
Date Thu, 13 Jun 2019 06:44:08 GMT
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:11 PM Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I agree with other respondents that 'serious' seems bad here. To me the
> > serious ones are the only ones they can't release with.
>
> So we just continue as is then? You have any suggests to what we change?
>

I don't think we're using the same word meanings.

I think that serious = release blocker; but I equally think there are very
few items that are serious.


>
> > ReleaseBlocking:  Has a LICENSE.  Legally permitted to release and
> complies
> > with the license via some mechanism.
>
> We currently allow releases that are not strictly legal. This would be a
> step backwards.
>
>
I'd love to hear some examples. I suspect they are all legal.

Speculating hypothetically:

* We should never make a release that we know there is some content in that
we explicitly do not have permission to publish.
* We should never make a release that we know contains content that is
criminal (for whatever that would mean).

Other than that... I'm not sure what else would come under 'all legal'
label.


> > GraduationBlocking:  Everything else; including complying with the
> license
> > via our preferred mechanism (i.e. we might want the MIT license text in
> our
> > LICENSE file, but would accept it being in the source header of the files
> > themselves).
>
> We currently allow podlings to graduate with some issues as longs as the
> PPMC is dealing with them. This would be a step backwards.
>
>
Yeah. We need a third category for "MehNotBlockingPleaseFix".


> > I don't see a need to go to the board on this :)
>
> If we don’t want to change anything - sure there's no need to go to the
> board.
>

I'd definitely like to see change. My feeling is that there's a lot we can
make that falls comfortably within the scope of the Incubator PMC. IIRC the
release policies came out of the Incubator; I don't recall there being a
request for the board to ratify them, but I might be failing to remember
something a decade+ ago :)


>
> >> issues have been fixed. The IPMC will add additional information to the
> > incubator DISCLAIMER to cover that podling release may not abide by all
> >
> > The IPMC? That sounds like a people scaling problem. The podling
> committee
> > should handle it.
>
> I mean just changing this page [1] , podlings can update their own
> disclaimers.
>

Gotya :)


>
> > "This release still has the following issues that will need to be
> resolved
> > before the Foo Project can graduate to an Apache vetted Top Level
> Project”
>
> What about unknown issues?
>

By that are you suggesting that the text implies a guarantee that those are
the only issues? (Otherwise I'm off into philosophy of whether the unknown
can exist when the only test makes it known :) ).

"The Foo Project have currently identified the following issues that will
need to be resolved before the project can graduate to an Apache vetted Top
Level Project”

Any better?


> > Are the board lawyers? :) Until you have a well-defined list, I doubt
> > anything could be confirmed. I'd go with:  "Conceptually what you
> describe
> > could lead to a situation where a PPMC releases a project fully compliant
> > with the ASF's expectations. “
>
> I assume you mean “not fully compliant”?
>

Nope.

I was being defensive in my broad statements. For the given question; sure,
someone might manage a perfect release someday :)

Hen

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