Martijn, This is excellent feedback, thanks very much!
That being said, it would make everyone's lives easier if incubator releases were in the central repository, so I still vote +1 on that ;) On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> JSecurity also meets condition b) >> >> Our users will scream bloody murder if they can no longer access >> JSecurity from the central repository. So we'll continue to publish >> there, even if it means publishing under the old org.jsecurity group >> id. > > Which is perfectly fine IMO. Wicket did the same, just not the Apache > Wicket code. It is the aim to stay in the incubator as short as > possible. This means that you need to focus on meeting the graduation > criteria: create a diverse open meritocratic community, ensure all > legal bits are resolved and release your code (at least once). I would > therefore continue maintaining the old jsecurity code, and release > those outside the incubator, just as normal business for your project. > This provides the necessary stability for your users, and prevent them > from screaming bloody murder. New development (pick enough features to > keep you busy for a couple of months - year) should happen in the > incubator code base, so you can add new developers, and learn to work > the Apache Way (tm). I'd suggest also to rename the packages only when > you are almost ready to graduate. This allows you to merge current > development and maintenance quite easily. > > THe WIcket project did have all code imported into the incubator repo, > so we could easily backport features/bug fixes. We just released the > artifacts on sourceforge and uploaded them ourselves to the central > repo using the outside channels. We *did* make perfectly clear that > even though Wicket is in the incubator, that the release wasn't > endorsed by nor associated with Apache. You can look at the releases > for Wicket 1.2 (http://wicketframework.org/wicket-1.2) to see how we > did this. > > The Apache based development (org.apache.wicket) happened in parallel, > but for the most part in the same namespace as the old wicket code. We > did create a couple of releases inside the incubator to learn how to > perform an Apache release. But iirc we never actually published those > releases to the greater public. > > This process worked great for Wicket, but your mileage may vary. > > Martijn > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
