incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <>
Subject Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)
Date Tue, 13 Aug 2019 22:04:46 GMT

> I am for option (F) with the addition of Myrle’s [REVIEW] until such time as the podling
is fully compliant with Apache Release Policy and goes through the usual process. Abiding
by the Apache Release Policy would remain a Graduation Requirement.

I’ll note not a single podling has asked for a [REVIEW].

> So, we treat these releases as not fully approved the same way we treat Binary Conveniences.

They are not the same as binary conveniences, as they are derived from a voted on approved
release. Thinking about (F) if they are not official releases could a podling:
a) Call them Apache releases? (Not doing may have a number of implications including naming
of artefacts, package names and the like),
b) Place tham on a download page on their ASF provided website? If so what would be required
to make it clear they are not approved releases?

We might want to check with branding and legal and get their input on this.

My concerns are that:
a) As IPMC votes are not required, less IPMC people (including mentors) look at the releases
or are less thorough in doing so, and things slip through
b) This become a hard gate at the worse time i.e. graduation. What happens if a community
proposed graduation and it found it’s releases have serious issue?

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

View raw message