Hi, > I am for option (F) with the addition of Myrle’s [REVIEW] until such time as > the podling is fully compliant with Apache Release Policy and goes through > the usual process. Abiding by the Apache Release Policy would remain a > Graduation Requirement.
I’ll note not a single podling has asked for a [REVIEW]. > So, we treat these releases as not fully approved the same way we treat > Binary Conveniences. They are not the same as binary conveniences, as they are derived from a voted on approved release. Thinking about (F) if they are not official releases could a podling: a) Call them Apache releases? (Not doing may have a number of implications including naming of artefacts, package names and the like), b) Place tham on a download page on their ASF provided website? If so what would be required to make it clear they are not approved releases? We might want to check with branding and legal and get their input on this. My concerns are that: a) As IPMC votes are not required, less IPMC people (including mentors) look at the releases or are less thorough in doing so, and things slip through b) This become a hard gate at the worse time i.e. graduation. What happens if a community proposed graduation and it found it’s releases have serious issue? Thanks, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
