On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:50 AM, ant elder <ant.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And the Incubator _is_ different and does have different policy and
> rules, hence on occasion podlings being permitted to do releases which
> include GPL dependencies while Incubating and just fixing those up as
> a graduation requirement.
Over in another thread[1], Bertrand came up with a thoughtful formulation:
I have no problem with clear and documented decisions to relax some of
the release checklist criteria for an incubating release, as long as
that doesn't put the foundation at risk.
That's more lenient than either my "inconsequential" test or Benson's
"materiality", but it provides something else: a framework inside which
the Incubator may bend the rules. It had been hard for me to understand how
we could justify exercising discretion about policy, given the Incubator's
obligations as an ordinary Apache TLP, but perhaps "document how this problem
doesn't put the Foundation at risk" is something I can get behind.
I expect that an incubating release with a GPL dependency would have
necessitated the approval of VP Legal Affairs, right? That would fit inside
Bertrand's framework.
Similarly, licensing documentation bugs such as extra garbage in NOTICE or
the occasional missing ALv2 header do not "put the foundation at risk" -- or
put our downstream users at risk. For a release tagged with the "incubating"
label and disclaimer, filing bugs rather than blocking seems reasonable.
I'm curious what others think. There's room for us to disagree, since release
votes do not require consensus...
Marvin Humphrey
[1] http://s.apache.org/r1F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
