On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The current tally is extremely close (9 +1 vs. 8 -1 binding) >> I don't want to close an issue with such a small margin. > > I suggest that we should not change policy on anything like this lack of > concensus. I do, however, suggest that pressure be put on Maven to enforce > signing.
I don't understand why the signing issue keeps coming into this debate - in your own words regarding maven from the July 2008 Incubator board report "...there are real and significant issues/consequences to the ASF, but they are not Incubator specific..." Craig made a couple of points that quite a few agreed with, the first about configuration, but AIUI you configure maven for the current incubating repository either at a project or user level - not at an artifact level. So, for example, I decide that despite its incubating status I want to use Tika and configure the repo - but after that I get any other incubating artifacts (e.g. PDFBox, which once it has a release will probably be a Tika dependency) without having to stop and do something explicit. So this argument is flawed - at least to a certain extent. It would be more consistent IMO if those voting -1 were arguing to not put any artifacts in any maven repo. The other point that Craig made was the risk of abandonement. Perhaps this is true (not sure how many failed podlings we've had) - but its a generalization that isn't always the case. For example wicket entered with vibrant community and on the other side of the coin there are fully fledged ASF projects, still releasing today, that are far more of a risk in that department. The reality then is that users really need to look at this on a case-by-case basis for any project - incubating or fully-fledged - if abandonement is something that would be of concern to them. Niall > --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
