incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <>
Subject Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
Date Sun, 26 Jul 2015 23:20:39 GMT
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Gruno <> wrote:
> On 2015-07-26 10:56, jan i wrote:
>> No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
>> mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
>> Maybe we can find some middle ground.
>> - Mentors "run" the podlings, can accept releases etc.
>> - Mentors decide when a podlng can graduate (maybe with some form of,
>> needs
>> to accepted by all mentors of the project)
>> - Any release must be announced (not voted) on general@, so that people
>> like you have a chance of controlling it just like today.
>> I think this would make incubator a lot more efficient, reduce our
>> inboxes,
>> and give us spare time to concentrate on other things.
>> rgds
>> jan i.
> This is somewhat similar to the 2013 alternate release policy we have,
> whereby the first release has to do the initial IPMC clearance vote, but
> subsequent releases only need the mentors' approval. I believe our current
> policy is sound and has proven itself effective, as you can see by the many
> times a new podling's release has been caught by the "policy watch dogs" we
> have in the IPMC that specialize in reviewing material that is to be
> released.
> Optionally, if we aim to 'save space in our inboxes', we could generate a
> new group of people on a specific ML designed for initial release
> verification, and all _first releases_ would go through that list and have
> things checked, while only sending a NOTICE to the general incubator list on
> successfully released software.
> I do not, however, think we should just scrap the current rule of having the
> outside judge the initial release, as it has been shown, time after time,
> that it really does help to have this external review.

I'd like to raise a somewhat orthogonal point. Mainly the fact that our
obsession with doing good work with podlings could, very well, be
obscuring a much more important issues. And given how limited
our resources of eyeballs looking at releases are -- we need to
be practical.

Now, while I couldn't agree more that IP hygiene of releases is one of
the corner  stones of what makes ASF what it is, I have to be realistic in
accepting the fact that once podling is out of the incubation and becomes a TLP
the level of external scrutiny drops by 90% and all bets are off. Some TLPs
do great releases. Some do really poor ones. Sometimes ppl notify the board.

Once again, I can't be happier that there are folks like Justin who spend
an enormous amount of their personal time helping to vet releases of
podlings. I only ask: should his (and guys like him) time be better applied
to helping foundation make sure that our TLPs are doing what they are
supposed to do as well?


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

View raw message