On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I really do not know why we have to revisit this same topic year after year >> after year.
it has now been clearly established that we need to move the repository. we're now just asking: where? > Because it's an arbitrary restriction that IMHO hasn't been properly > justified. i'm not sure i'd put it so categorically we can choose to ask incubating projects to publish their jars to a separate repository but this is irrelevant for most users. maven automatically downloads their releases from central repositories hosted offshore. jar upload to these repositories is beyond the direct control of apache or incubating projects. asking podlings to use a separate repository is not going to be effective for any well used product. for any product which isn't yet well used, it creates a barrier to adoption. >> We do not want people to be using any Incubator artifact without explicit >> knowledge and action, so we do not want them polluting the standard >> repository. > > Replace "artifact" with "release" and "standard repository" with "the > Internet" and you have a rationale for preventing incubating releases. > I wouldn't agree with that, but at least that would be a clear and > consistent argument. > > One of the key principles of open source is that you don't put > arbitrary restrictions on where or how the code is distributed or > used. Once we approve a release it should be up to the project to > decide how they want to make it available to their users. once an artifact has been released, we lose control over the distribution. asking podlings to publish through a secondary repository is both annoying and ineffective at making it explicit to people that they are using artifacts under incubation. this measure cuts against the grain of maven. in terms of communication, the pom is the place to focus. AIUI maven users choose to use a library by adding a dependency with artifact and group IDs. an easy and effective way to ensure that users know that they are using an artifact from the incubator would be to ensure that the group or artifact ID includes this information. we could also ask that the pom (meta-data) for the project specifies 'Apache Software Foundation (Incubator)' rather than 'Apache Software Foundation' as the organisation. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
