On 02/06/2008, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's just the thing though: > > At the end of the day, the vast majority of TLP end users could care less if > the TLP uses an incubator dependency or not, as long as it is Apache 2.0 > compatible and easily available (i.e. in the central repo). They trust the > TLP to do their due diligence to ensure the dependency works as expected > within the TLP, is tested and has gone through stability sanity checks. The > 'incubator' name in the release plus maybe a DISCLAIMER or entry in a README > file is good enough. Anything requiring manual intervention is just a pain > to deal with for almost everyone. > > I feel very strongly the incubator releases should be in the main repo for > simplicity's sake and to encourage adoption, and that a TLP should be able > to use its judgment on whether or not to include an incubator dependency - > they know their project best and will support their community best. > > So I'm very much in agreement with 1) allowing incubator releases to go to > the central repo and 2) allowing TLPs to decide themselves to include an > incubator dependency or not. > > Both Incubator _and_ TLP communities will feel unnecessary burden or > hindrance otherwise. >
Part of the Incubation process is to ensure that there is sufficient community to maintain the code after incubation. Not all incubator projects achieve this. It seems a bad idea to allow artefacts into the main repository where they can become dependencies unless there is some chance that they will be maintained. Yes, there are ASF projects that fall by the wayside too, but that is not the point. > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 02/06/2008, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Incubator releases go into Central > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I think having the "incubator" or "incubating" word in the version > > > name brings sufficient awareness to the users. > > > > But Maven does not warn about using incubator versions. > > > > If you are adding a direct dependency on an incubator version, then > > the user may understand the significance of the word. Or they may not, > > depending on whether they understand the jargon correctly. > > > > But if the dependency is a transitive one, then the user does not get > > to know about this (unless they scan the maven log very carefully) > > > > > While ServiceMix was in incubation, we had sometime a hard time to > > > tell our users that being in incubation has nothing to do with the > > > quality of the code, but rather with IP and mostly community building. > > > Given we had to explain that, it is clear our users were aware that > > > the project was still incubating. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Regular releases cannot use Incubator artifacts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > ------------------------ > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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]
