On 21 October 2014 07:26, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:45 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 21.10.2014 06:34, Alex Harui wrote: > >> What is the piece I’m missing that says we have to vote to update the > >> binary package? > > > > Apparently the Flex community believes that convenience binaries need > > votes. They don't, but aside from that, if you guys are already voting > > on binary packages, it makes perfect sense to vote for your fixed > > version, if only to keep people happy. > > > > > > -- Brane > > > > P.S.: Why anyone would think voting on binaries makes any kind of sense > > around here is, of course, a different question. I can't even begin to > > count the number of times it's been pointed out that binaries are not > > Apache releases. > I am sure you make among other Apache OpenOffice unhappy with that statement, we have several projects where the binaries are more frequent downloaded than the source code. Also me wonders, why has there been such a big discussion/demand for a digitial signing service (just released by infra), that makes absolutely no sense if we only release source. It might be our rules say we only release source, but I am sure many of our users in e.g. Apache OpenOffice users dont care about the source, their only concern is the binary, as a consequence we need to be carefull whenever a binary carries the apache name. of traffic I've seen around clarifying some finer (and not so fine) > points of release/licensing implication it is about time we start > an FAQ on that. Me thinks at least. > +1 rgds jan i > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
