> On Feb 12, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that we need a vote even for distribution of unreleased
>> material <https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#unreleased>?
>
> You are not allowed to distribute unreleased material outside the developer
> community. [1] I would read that as users being outside the developer
> community.
OK, IPMC/member hat securely on. I’m not speaking for Infra here.
Releases on dockerhub, NPM, gradle, etc, etc, etc, etc, which are nominally
tagged as “convenience binaries” end up being far more widely spread than the
“developer community” due to the nature of those systems.
There’s a lot of talk in this else-thread, and a lot of reticence to address
the “we release source, not binaries” issue. The reality is that end-users
consume binaries. Unless you’re a release manager for a major OS, nobody
compiles source anymore. It’s the elephant in the room, and what’s happening
now is that binary objects are popping up all over the place. I’m going to pick
on Docker because I hate it so much: Infra has allowed a fair bit of leeway
here, they previously created only automated builds, but over time have allowed
more general access to projects in order to allow them to create nightlies,
regenerate builds, and so forth, because it was more efficient and expedient to
do so. This is a double edged sword in that we as the Foundation are allowing
projects to work with their customer base without undue restriction, but we
have essentially zero control over what artifacts are released. Furthermore, I
don’t know that we have a lot of ability to stop it, short of curtailing access
to the official /u/apache/ namespace and other namespaces that Infra may
control.
I think the discussions here and the framework that’s been offered by Justin is
a fantastic start, and I’m 100% in favor of it. I would like to see his
guideline document posted somewhere on cwiki so it doesn’t get lost in this
thread. I would ultimately like both VP Legal and Infra to assess it, so that
everyone’s on the same page in terms of what’s “allowed,” because right now, I
think we’re all flying by the seat of our pants.
-Chris
>
>> Incubator-weex had used unofficial release without vote to get quick
>> feedback from users before we knew it could break the rule of Apache
>> release. *According to my understanding, any format of release on any
>> platform needs a vote even if it is unofficial, snapshot, nightly build and
>> etc..* Correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Well a snapshots shot or nightly may be OK if it a) not use as a substitute
> for not voting b) clearly marked so a user wouldn’t assume it a release and
> c) not placed in the main place user go to to get it. I would guess that the
> above doesn’t qualify but check with your mentors.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#unreleased
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
