On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, 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. >> > > Well, that doesn't solve the transitive dependency problem. Suppose > you use project X and project X uses a podling release. You'll > probably never know it (as pointed out earlier). For most folks, they > don't really care as long as it works (also pointed out earlier), but > I can see where the ASF would want to make sure that the user > acknowledges that they're know they're using a podling release (even > if it's indirectly), since the ASF doesn't officially "endorse" the > project (yet).
the only concern should be with the user of the library: the developer who elects to depend up it to build their library or application. the secondary distribution of open source libraries cannot be control and attempting to do so will only introduce unnecessary friction for minimal gain. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
