incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <>
Subject [DISCUSS] Significance of Artifact Names
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2017 03:19:38 GMT

This is a follow up to recent threads, purposely made a bit broader to
encourage more discussions.  First to set down some facts about what's been

1. Incubator policy [1] states that a podling's release meets two
requirements, include "incubating" in the release archive's file name and
the standard disclaimer within the documentation or README.

2. The foundation policy on a valid release [2] seems to indicate that the
elements that make up a valid release includes properly licensed source
code, ICLAs on file, IP clearance and grants.

3. Back in 2008 [3] it was established that incubator released are endorsed
while the podlings themselves are not endorsed.  This means that while the
podling may not fully be developed in an open way, all releases produced
are expected to comply with ASF policies.

So why am I harping on this problem?  The incubator has a series of guides,
which are partially treated as policy and partially treated as advice.
Many of these guides remain with large notions of being draft only, not
finalized, I want to try to get these draft documents finalized so that
we're able to provide better guidance to podlings coming in.

I also think its important to keep our policies and guides as light as
possible.  There shouldn't be a lot different in the incubator than a TLP
would go through, or else this makes the eventual transition to TLP harder
since many things previously done are now different.

One of the distinguishing marks within the incubator is the use of maven.
The incubator has a best practice that says if your build tool is maven, if
and when you publish a convenience binary, that convenience binary must
include either incubator or incubating in the version string [4].  Its not
clear why maven is singled out, probably because it was the first of its
kind, other tools didn't exist.  One of the key notes I can find is that
the downstream redistribution channels are operated outside the ASF [5].
So while Maven is an apache project, maven central is not an ASF managed
resource but we are attempting to enforce our internal concerns to an
outside party.

So I move that we cannot apply our policies on third parties, and artifacts
distributed in maven central from our release archives need not comply with
our policies.



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