i disagree. the lack of a release snapshot doesn't seem to interfere with sourceforge projects attracting people, and i don't see that it would be any different here.
The lack of release snapshots on sf.net is (IMO) the best indicator, that the project isn't maintained well or even not at all. At least I cannot remember a single case of a project without published files, where the CVS did contain something useful.
i think the point is that a podling is *not* part of the asf, and is therefore not entitled to distribute something with the asf's name on it. if the podling graduates, i don't see any bar to whatever packages were built during incubation being retitled as asf ones.
There are several things I do not understand here. First of all, IMO, by accepting a project for incubation, it is part of the ASF. For whatever other reason am I expected to sign a contribution agreement at the beginning? From your point of view, it would be suffigient to sign when
the project exits incubation.
Next, assuming that my point is wrong, I would assume that incubation is targetted to be a process of transition. Which means, that a project is at some point perhaps not completely ready, but with a sufficient progress. What good does it, to insist in the "final 20 percent" or whatever you are missing?
Finally, you should not forget that incubated projects are frequently mature and well maintained. What good does it, to forbid them to publish, for example, a release that is "identical to the last public release, except
that the package names are being updated". IMO this is the least what users can expect to guide them in their own transition as soon as possible.
Jochen
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
