On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I agree that this potentially could be an issue, but whether it's a > >> technical requirement is up to the team who's doing the work. If > >> Apache feels that there is a requirement that no project releases > >> code/document/etc... under any package other than org.apache.* then > >> that should be clearly defined and communicated. At this point my > >> understanding is there is no such requirement. > >> > >> > > I think this is a policy we should adhere too from this point forward. > > Apache wide policy or incubator policy? If it's not Apache wide then > any project could just wait till graduation and do as they see fit. > The idea of incubation is to ensure that a podling adheres to Apache > policy before being let loose to run itself. If we make this an > incubator only restriction we're saying that that's not the case. > > That's a good point. > > The technical problem is small in comparison to other issues this brings > into play. > > What issues? That people will be confused about whether Apache > released/branded code, downloaded from Apache, where the majority of > the code is org.apache packaged, but some subset of clearly marked > deprecated code, defined as an aid for migration is Apache or not? > Doesn't seem like an issue to me. > > I think the issues were amply expressed in this thread. Just take a look at what Ate, Mo, and I said earlier. -- Best Regards, -- Alex
