Re: [VOTE] Should we treat incubator releases differently to normal releases

[Craig L Russell]

Also straddling the fence, but have thought about this a lot. After seeing the release process for incubating projects, I'd say that they get sufficient scrutiny compared to TLP releases. So we're not putting Apache in a bad legal position by releasing incubating software. The only danger is that the project will fail and the incubating release is the last release. And for me this is not a big enough problem to make users go through the maven pain.

On Mar 15, 2007, at 6:23 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:

Adding extra maven repositories is bad. It makes everything slower in case you are using SNAPSHOTS. And an Apache incubator repository that's not mirrored is a single point of failure. No relief in sight for this. Making users acknowledge that they are using incubating software is a good thing, but I believe that this can be addressed without the maven pain.

Two parts to the vote:

ONE: Should Incubator tarballs go in the normal place (and thus mirrors).

[ x] +1
[ ] -1



TWO: Should there be an Incubator maven repository.

[ ] +1
[x ] -1

See above.

Craig

Having "incubating" in the artifact name is a big clue that you're using incubating software.

Vote to last a week. Unless people are bored of replying, or it's a
flamefest, or we're too busy pursuing eternal enlightenment and
running free in the mountains.

Hen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature