incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean-Baptiste Onofré>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts
Date Mon, 02 Jan 2017 21:14:19 GMT
Thanks for the details and explanation John.

As far as the source artifacts contains -incubating, it's fine for me.

I still think that -incubating on the Maven central artifact coordinates 
is interesting, however, if removing it allows us to "align" all 
artifacts format resulting to different build tools (Maven, Gradle, 
...), it's reasonable.


On 01/02/2017 10:02 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> The average is currently 2 years (give or take).  Just to level set.
> I find it interesting that you mention Groovy in your response Mark.  Did
> you know that Groovy interpreted the policy the way this vote is trying to
> formalize the policy, and the artifacts published to maven central did not
> include -incubating?
> You'll notice that the 2.4.5 release was put forth to the incubator as
> 2.4.5-incubating, but published as 2.4.5 in maven central.  You could say
> that what this vote is trying to do is help give clearance to podlings that
> what Groovy did is correct.
> I'll also point out that Groovy didn't use Maven as a build tool, as a
> result they may have felt the policy didn't apply.  They used gradle to
> publish to maven central.
> JB, I hope this response helps clarify for you as well.  I want to make
> sure its clear, the purpose of this vote is to remove the -incubating from
> convenience binaries published via maven, which for some reason is singled
> out in the incubator policies.  Other tools (Gradle, Ant, PyPi, C/C++/Make)
> do not have this requirement, so the goal is to align Maven to all the
> other tools.
> It would still be expected that source distributions include -incubating in
> the file name, since that's the official ASF release.
> John
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM Mark Struberg <>
> wrote:
>> Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in 8
>> months:
>> But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE)
>> it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :)
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>> Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple <>:
>>>> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in
>> under 6 months, isn't?
>>> Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
>>> finish in 6 months?
>>> Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
>>> seemed to call it a model of incubation:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:

Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Talend -

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

View raw message