> I believe that allowing incubating releases to be treated as full Apache > releases diminishes the Apache brand and makes incubation disclaimers moot.
I believe that if it says incubation in large letters, people will understand that it is not a full Apache release. But we're both guessing. > With Maven, it is too easy to depend on a release with transitive > dependencies on incubating releases without even knowing it. When the > incubating release subsequently is abandoned, blame will be cast widely, > including Apache itself. Abandoning releases and release-naming schemes happen. I don't think Apache's name will be hurt if that ever happens for an incubating project. After all, users have their own bit of responsibility to read about what it means that a project is incubating. If you depend on beta releases, you have the possibility that it won't ever make it to a real release, and if you depend on an incubating project, you have the possibility that it won't ever graduate. And if it won't, Apache isn't to blame, it's just part of the game. > Considering that dependencies on incubating releases can be resolved by > explicitly adding an incubating Maven repository into your settings, I don't > think that wide, mirrored, distribution is warranted. Putting a strain on Apache hardware that could be avoided when releases on public repositories were allowed? :-) While it is a tad more difficult for users and project members to do it like this, it won't solve the problem you mentioned above (and with which I don't fully agree); if the project won't graduate, people will be grumpy about it regardless of whether intermediate releases were hosted on a 'private' or public repository. Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
