What the incubator wants/needs/requires is that the community understand how to make and vote on a release,
and that the release conforms to Apache legal standards.I would be happy to split these two items for the subversion podling as follows:
1. Have the podling make and vote, on the Apache mailing list, on a non-Apache branded release (some maintenance release that might be upcoming) that's made outside Apache. This is the process thing, that without my going through the existing archives, I assume has been done countless times without any Apache oversight and should simply demonstrate to everyone how the community works.
2. Have the podling make an Apache-branded tarball with signatures for legal review by the incubator. This is the thing that may very well contain some surprises (some unexpected LGPL dependency, missing license header file, or some such). There are people here who pick nits as entertainment. ;-)
CraigP.S. It was never my intent that the incubator would require the subversion community to release some crap for the sake of releasing some crap.
On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 22:05, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote:Hi, On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:Plan: raise an issue, and we fix it. Not sure what else you're looking for.I was just pointing out that if you want to do the release review based on an existing 1.6.x release, I wouldn't expect it to be fully compliant with Apache policies (license headers, etc.) and would accept a plan on how those issues will be (or already are being) resolved in the first Apache release of Subversion (1.7.0?). To me that would satisfy the release-related exit criteria we have. I'm also fine with the other proposed ways of satisfying or waiving those exit criteria.Sigh. You've just looped right back around. I offered a demonstration of the 1.6.x releases as a demonstration of our *process*. But that was deemed unacceptable. The Apache-branded stuff is trunk or 1.7, which has no scheduled release. "No release" was deemed unacceptable. If you want to review *bits* rather than *release process*, then you can take a look at trunk/ or the nightlies that we'll soon produce. If you want release process *and* Apache-branding, then the svn community is not prepared to provide that, nor do I think it necessary (see the deferred vote for waiving a release). But your above paragraph is some conflation of release practices, legal review, and how this fits into graduation requirements. And I just got done with a frustrating several days on that issue. What do you want? ugh, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:craig.russ...@sun.com P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
