On 30/05/2008, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My proposed solution: > > 1. A podling could not issue a release until after IP issues have > been cleared by the IPMC. > 2. Once a podling's release has been approved (which includes IP > approval), they would release to the central maven repository under > the group id org.apache.incubator.podlingname, enabling easy adoption > by end users. > > Having the word 'incubator' in the group id conforms to repo > conventions matching domain names thereby not surprising any > end-users, and also explicitly requires the developer editing the pom > or ivy config to visually recognize it is _not_ an ASF TLP. Because > they explicitly manually include the word 'incubator', they know its > not an official ASF endorsed project.
Assuming that the meaning of "Incubator" is well understood - which may not be the case. Also, then a non-incubator project uses the incubator project as a dependency. This hides the incubator dependency - no thank you! > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM, James Carman > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, let's define the goals here: > > > > 1. The ASF would like folks who want to use incubating projects to do > > so knowingly somehow. This is somewhat of a CYA tactic so that people > > are acknowledging "yes, I understand this is not an 'official' ASF > > project, but I'd like to use it anyway." > > 2. Incubating projects would like to be able to get releases in front > > of people so that they can build their community. > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:43 AM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hrm - I thought you had to have IP clearance before you even were > >> accepted as a podling. Or maybe its just that Alan is such a great > >> Champion for us, that he helped us along that path before we even > >> submitted our proposal ;) > >> > >> Under this assumption (that IP clearance exists already), it makes > >> much more sense to allow the podling to publish approved releases to > >> the central repository, but still under an > >> org.apache.incubator.projectname group id to maintain > >> convention/simplicity. > >> > >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, James Carman > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Haile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> So it seems that a valid question is whether or not publishing to one > >>>> repository or another indicates an endorsement. > >>> > >>> Yes, that's certainly a valid question. Again, that's just my > >>> personal point of view. > >>> > >>> The biggest problem with incubator projects (again my opinion) having > >>> releases is the IP clearance. Perhaps there should be multiple stages > >>> of incubation. The first stage should be where you verify the IP > >>> clearance and projects in that stage shouldn't be allowed to do > >>> releases at all. Then they might graduate to the next stage and that > >>> would be a "community building" stage where we make sure the project > >>> has enough community around it. These projects should be able to > >>> provide incubating releases. > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
