[VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[John D. Ament]

All,

I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
tools (e.g. PyPi).

I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
with the understanding that:

- Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
a TLP.
- Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.


[ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
[ ] +/0
[ ] -1 Don't drop because


[1]:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Mark Struberg]

-1

It makes it clear that those artifacts are not yet stable ASF projects yet 
(legally + community).
If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in under 6 
months, isn't?

Any for any other project I find it quite ok to know what you get.

Please also check the discussions from back then when we introduced this policy 
(for a good reason).

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 02.01.2017 um 18:22 schrieb John D. Ament :
> 
> All,
> 
> I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
> indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
> the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
> a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
> tools (e.g. PyPi).
> 
> I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
> projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
> with the understanding that:
> 
> - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
> release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
> are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
> a TLP.
> - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
> will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.
> 
> 
> [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
> [ ] +/0
> [ ] -1 Don't drop because
> 
> 
> [1]:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

-1

I understand your point, but, even if it's not in the version, having a 
keyword that the project is still in incubation is important (from a 
legal perspective, I don't talk about the release itself).
In the version, artifactId or classifier don't matter, however, having 
this flag is important IMHO.


Regards
JB

On 01/02/2017 06:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

All,

I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
tools (e.g. PyPi).

I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
with the understanding that:

- Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
a TLP.
- Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.


[ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
[ ] +/0
[ ] -1 Don't drop because


[1]:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven



--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[John D. Ament]

JB

Can you clarify what you mean by legal here?


On Jan 2, 2017 13:05, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"  wrote:

-1

I understand your point, but, even if it's not in the version, having a
keyword that the project is still in incubation is important (from a legal
perspective, I don't talk about the release itself).
In the version, artifactId or classifier don't matter, however, having this
flag is important IMHO.

Regards
JB


On 01/02/2017 06:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

> All,
>
> I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
> indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
> the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
> a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
> tools (e.g. PyPi).
>
> I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
> projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
> with the understanding that:
>
> - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
> release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
> are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
> a TLP.
> - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
> will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.
>
>
> [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
> [ ] +/0
> [ ] -1 Don't drop because
>
>
> [1]:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
>
>
-- 
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

By legal, I mean that some files may not contain required headers, or 
part of the code requires refactoring because it belongs to a non active 
developer (code created before the incubation) or the Software Grant 
Agreement is not yet signed for instance.

I think during the first steps of the project (and so releases), it happens.

Regards
JB

On 01/02/2017 07:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

JB

Can you clarify what you mean by legal here?


On Jan 2, 2017 13:05, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"  wrote:

-1

I understand your point, but, even if it's not in the version, having a
keyword that the project is still in incubation is important (from a legal
perspective, I don't talk about the release itself).
In the version, artifactId or classifier don't matter, however, having this
flag is important IMHO.

Regards
JB


On 01/02/2017 06:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote:


All,

I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
tools (e.g. PyPi).

I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
with the understanding that:

- Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
a TLP.
- Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.


[ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
[ ] +/0
[ ] -1 Don't drop because


[1]:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven




--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[John D. Ament]

Can you bring this up on the relevant discussion thread?

On Jan 2, 2017 13:14, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"  wrote:

> By legal, I mean that some files may not contain required headers, or part
> of the code requires refactoring because it belongs to a non active
> developer (code created before the incubation) or the Software Grant
> Agreement is not yet signed for instance.
> I think during the first steps of the project (and so releases), it
> happens.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> On 01/02/2017 07:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
>> JB
>>
>> Can you clarify what you mean by legal here?
>>
>>
>> On Jan 2, 2017 13:05, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"  wrote:
>>
>> -1
>>
>> I understand your point, but, even if it's not in the version, having a
>> keyword that the project is still in incubation is important (from a legal
>> perspective, I don't talk about the release itself).
>> In the version, artifactId or classifier don't matter, however, having
>> this
>> flag is important IMHO.
>>
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>>
>> On 01/02/2017 06:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>>
>>> I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
>>> indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating)
>>> in
>>> the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice,
>>> not
>>> a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
>>> tools (e.g. PyPi).
>>>
>>> I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting
>>> java-based
>>> projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
>>> with the understanding that:
>>>
>>> - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
>>> release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
>>> are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to
>>> become
>>> a TLP.
>>> - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
>>> will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
>>> [ ] +/0
>>> [ ] -1 Don't drop because
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]:
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> jbono...@apache.org
> http://blog.nanthrax.net
> Talend - http://www.talend.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Sure, I will. Thanks.

Regards
JB

On 01/02/2017 07:39 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

Can you bring this up on the relevant discussion thread?

On Jan 2, 2017 13:14, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"  wrote:


By legal, I mean that some files may not contain required headers, or part
of the code requires refactoring because it belongs to a non active
developer (code created before the incubation) or the Software Grant
Agreement is not yet signed for instance.
I think during the first steps of the project (and so releases), it
happens.

Regards
JB

On 01/02/2017 07:10 PM, John D. Ament wrote:


JB

Can you clarify what you mean by legal here?


On Jan 2, 2017 13:05, "Jean-Baptiste Onofré"  wrote:

-1

I understand your point, but, even if it's not in the version, having a
keyword that the project is still in incubation is important (from a legal
perspective, I don't talk about the release itself).
In the version, artifactId or classifier don't matter, however, having
this
flag is important IMHO.

Regards
JB


On 01/02/2017 06:22 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

All,


I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating)
in
the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice,
not
a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
tools (e.g. PyPi).

I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting
java-based
projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
with the understanding that:

- Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to
become
a TLP.
- Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.


[ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
[ ] +/0
[ ] -1 Don't drop because


[1]:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven




--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org






--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Jim Apple]

> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in under 6 
> months, isn't?

Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
finish in 6 months?

Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
seemed to call it a model of incubation:

http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Mark Struberg]

Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in 8 
months:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html

But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE) it's 
pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :)

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple :
> 
>> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in under 
>> 6 months, isn't?
> 
> Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
> finish in 6 months?
> 
> Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
> seemed to call it a model of incubation:
> 
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html
> 
> -
> 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

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[John D. Ament]

The average is currently 2 years (give or take).  Just to level set.

I find it interesting that you mention Groovy in your response Mark.  Did
you know that Groovy interpreted the policy the way this vote is trying to
formalize the policy, and the artifacts published to maven central did not
include -incubating?

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.codehaus.groovy%22%20AND%20a%3A%22groovy%22

You'll notice that the 2.4.5 release was put forth to the incubator as
2.4.5-incubating, but published as 2.4.5 in maven central.  You could say
that what this vote is trying to do is help give clearance to podlings that
what Groovy did is correct.

I'll also point out that Groovy didn't use Maven as a build tool, as a
result they may have felt the policy didn't apply.  They used gradle to
publish to maven central.

JB, I hope this response helps clarify for you as well.  I want to make
sure its clear, the purpose of this vote is to remove the -incubating from
convenience binaries published via maven, which for some reason is singled
out in the incubator policies.  Other tools (Gradle, Ant, PyPi, C/C++/Make)
do not have this requirement, so the goal is to align Maven to all the
other tools.

It would still be expected that source distributions include -incubating in
the file name, since that's the official ASF release.

John

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in 8
> months:
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
>
> But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE)
> it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple :
> >
> >> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in
> under 6 months, isn't?
> >
> > Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
> > finish in 6 months?
> >
> > Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
> > seemed to call it a model of incubation:
> >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html
> >
> > -
> > 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
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Thanks for the details and explanation John.

As far as the source artifacts contains -incubating, it's fine for me.

I still think that -incubating on the Maven central artifact coordinates 
is interesting, however, if removing it allows us to "align" all 
artifacts format resulting to different build tools (Maven, Gradle, 
...), it's reasonable.


Regards
JB

On 01/02/2017 10:02 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

The average is currently 2 years (give or take).  Just to level set.

I find it interesting that you mention Groovy in your response Mark.  Did
you know that Groovy interpreted the policy the way this vote is trying to
formalize the policy, and the artifacts published to maven central did not
include -incubating?

http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.codehaus.groovy%22%20AND%20a%3A%22groovy%22

You'll notice that the 2.4.5 release was put forth to the incubator as
2.4.5-incubating, but published as 2.4.5 in maven central.  You could say
that what this vote is trying to do is help give clearance to podlings that
what Groovy did is correct.

I'll also point out that Groovy didn't use Maven as a build tool, as a
result they may have felt the policy didn't apply.  They used gradle to
publish to maven central.

JB, I hope this response helps clarify for you as well.  I want to make
sure its clear, the purpose of this vote is to remove the -incubating from
convenience binaries published via maven, which for some reason is singled
out in the incubator policies.  Other tools (Gradle, Ant, PyPi, C/C++/Make)
do not have this requirement, so the goal is to align Maven to all the
other tools.

It would still be expected that source distributions include -incubating in
the file name, since that's the official ASF release.

John

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM Mark Struberg 
wrote:


Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in 8
months:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html

But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE)
it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :)

LieGrue,
strub


Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple :


If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in

under 6 months, isn't?


Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
finish in 6 months?

Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
seemed to call it a model of incubation:

http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html

-
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






--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Daniel Dekany]

This vote doesn't allow voters to differentiate projects that start
their life in the Incubator from those coming to the Incubator after
already widely used. So the voter can only allow omitting
"-incubating" for all *kind* of incubating projects or for none of
them, hence I guess people tends to go for the safer option and more
common case. Admittedly, I'm interested in this because of another
project. But here's the same case again with Groovy. They haven't
grown in the Incubator, so they don't use the Apache brand in their
Maven coordinates (org.codehaus.groovy:groovy), so "-incubating" has
no context there. It has elsewhere, where there's "Apache" somewhere.


Monday, January 2, 2017, 10:02:53 PM, John D. Ament wrote:

> The average is currently 2 years (give or take).  Just to level set.
>
> I find it interesting that you mention Groovy in your response Mark.  Did
> you know that Groovy interpreted the policy the way this vote is trying to
> formalize the policy, and the artifacts published to maven central did not
> include -incubating?
>
> http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.codehaus.groovy%22%20AND%20a%3A%22groovy%22
>
> You'll notice that the 2.4.5 release was put forth to the incubator as
> 2.4.5-incubating, but published as 2.4.5 in maven central.  You could say
> that what this vote is trying to do is help give clearance to podlings that
> what Groovy did is correct.
>
> I'll also point out that Groovy didn't use Maven as a build tool, as a
> result they may have felt the policy didn't apply.  They used gradle to
> publish to maven central.
>
> JB, I hope this response helps clarify for you as well.  I want to make
> sure its clear, the purpose of this vote is to remove the -incubating from
> convenience binaries published via maven, which for some reason is singled
> out in the incubator policies.  Other tools (Gradle, Ant, PyPi, C/C++/Make)
> do not have this requirement, so the goal is to align Maven to all the
> other tools.
>
> It would still be expected that source distributions include -incubating in
> the file name, since that's the official ASF release.
>
> John
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
>
>> Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in 8
>> months:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
>>
>> But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE)
>> it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :)
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>> > Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple :
>> >
>> >> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in
>> under 6 months, isn't?
>> >
>> > Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
>> > finish in 6 months?
>> >
>> > Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
>> > seemed to call it a model of incubation:
>> >
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html
>> >
>> > -
>> > 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
>>
>>

-- 
Thanks,
 Daniel Dekany


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Pierre Smits]

First of all: this vote is turning into a discussion that should happen in
a separate thread

+1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects

It is not the code that is incubating.

Whether a project of the ASF has a status (podling, tlp, attic, etc.) is
irrelevant for the code. The code is donated/owned by the ASF, and tasks to
ensure that the code released is in conformance of the standards of the ASF
is delegated to the project. In the case of podlings, that responsibility
is delegated to the IPMC.
That a new project is going through the incubation phase is to ensure that
the community works in accordance with the principles and regulations of
the ASF (community over code, and such), and that the code is reworked to
something that can be released as code of the ASF.

For some open source is like a red flag. An addition like 'incubating'
could be regarded as worse. Is that what the ASF wants? This kind of
addition doesn't instil trust. It may influence potential adopters to stay
away of the code until the project has successfully gone through
incubation, It may influence potential contributors to not contribute until
graduation.

Best regards,

Pierre Smits

ORRTIZ.COM 
OFBiz based solutions & services

OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Dekany  wrote:

> This vote doesn't allow voters to differentiate projects that start
> their life in the Incubator from those coming to the Incubator after
> already widely used. So the voter can only allow omitting
> "-incubating" for all *kind* of incubating projects or for none of
> them, hence I guess people tends to go for the safer option and more
> common case. Admittedly, I'm interested in this because of another
> project. But here's the same case again with Groovy. They haven't
> grown in the Incubator, so they don't use the Apache brand in their
> Maven coordinates (org.codehaus.groovy:groovy), so "-incubating" has
> no context there. It has elsewhere, where there's "Apache" somewhere.
>
>
> Monday, January 2, 2017, 10:02:53 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> > The average is currently 2 years (give or take).  Just to level set.
> >
> > I find it interesting that you mention Groovy in your response Mark.  Did
> > you know that Groovy interpreted the policy the way this vote is trying
> to
> > formalize the policy, and the artifacts published to maven central did
> not
> > include -incubating?
> >
> > http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.
> codehaus.groovy%22%20AND%20a%3A%22groovy%22
> >
> > You'll notice that the 2.4.5 release was put forth to the incubator as
> > 2.4.5-incubating, but published as 2.4.5 in maven central.  You could say
> > that what this vote is trying to do is help give clearance to podlings
> that
> > what Groovy did is correct.
> >
> > I'll also point out that Groovy didn't use Maven as a build tool, as a
> > result they may have felt the policy didn't apply.  They used gradle to
> > publish to maven central.
> >
> > JB, I hope this response helps clarify for you as well.  I want to make
> > sure its clear, the purpose of this vote is to remove the -incubating
> from
> > convenience binaries published via maven, which for some reason is
> singled
> > out in the incubator policies.  Other tools (Gradle, Ant, PyPi,
> C/C++/Make)
> > do not have this requirement, so the goal is to align Maven to all the
> > other tools.
> >
> > It would still be expected that source distributions include -incubating
> in
> > the file name, since that's the official ASF release.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM Mark Struberg 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in
> 8
> >> months:
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html
> >>
> >> But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE)
> >> it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :)
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >> > Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple :
> >> >
> >> >> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in
> >> under 6 months, isn't?
> >> >
> >> > Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many
> >> > finish in 6 months?
> >> >
> >> > Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list
> >> > seemed to call it a model of incubation:
> >> >
> >> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > 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
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>  Daniel

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Greg Stein]

+1 (binding)

On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:22 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> All,
>
> I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
> indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
> the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
> a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
> tools (e.g. PyPi).
>
> I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
> projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
> with the understanding that:
>
> - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
> release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
> are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
> a TLP.
> - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
> will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.
>
>
> [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
> [ ] +/0
> [ ] -1 Don't drop because
>
>
> [1]:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
>

Re: Podling request steps have been updated

[Jim Apple]

Step 8: who has access to reporeq.apache.org? Which of a person's
various apache un/pw pairs is to be used to login?

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:45 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> All,
>
> I just got done editing the podling request page on the public website.
> Its based on areas that have changed recently.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact#requesting-podling
>
> If everyone could take a look and give feedback and where there needs to be
> more detail, I would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Julian Hyde]

-1

A release by an incubator project, even an established one (by which I
mean, one that has a community and a track record of high-quality
releases before entering incubation), is "less than" a release by full
Apache project: not necessarily in terms of quality, but in terms of
having been through the diligence process that makes it an Apache
release.

Though I feel the pain for existing projects such as Groovy and
Freemarker, they are not typical. Hard cases make bad law, as the
saying goes.

Rather than change policy (albeit de facto rather than de jure
policy), projects that find the "-incubating" suffix and undue burden
should ask the IPMC for permission to release outside of Apache. This
process is well established. Such a release would not be an Apache
release (or even an Apache incubator release), and therefore does not
need to be labeled "incubating".

Julian


On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Greg Stein  wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 11:22 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
>> indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
>> the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
>> a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
>> tools (e.g. PyPi).
>>
>> I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
>> projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
>> with the understanding that:
>>
>> - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
>> release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
>> are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
>> a TLP.
>> - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
>> will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.
>>
>>
>> [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
>> [ ] +/0
>> [ ] -1 Don't drop because
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Jim Apple]

> Though I feel the pain for existing projects such as Groovy and
> Freemarker, they are not typical.

What percentage of active incubating projects had "a track record of
high-quality releases before entering incubation"?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Drop incubating requirement of Maven artifacts

[Carsten Ziegeler]

-1

I followed the "other thread" but it's still unclear to me what real
problem this tries to solve.
As others noted, there should be an indicator whether this is already an
official Apache project or in the incubator and adding it to the version
information is the solution with causes the least amount of pain for
users. It's a simple marker, clearly visible for any user.
And once the project is out of the incubator, users simply need to
update to a new version - something which they would do anyway.

Carsten

John D. Ament wrote
> All,
> 
> I'm calling to vote on a proposed policy change.  Current guide at [1]
> indicates that maven artifacts should include incubator (or incubating) in
> the version string of maven artifacts.  Its labeled as a best practice, not
> a requirement and is not a policy followed on other repository management
> tools (e.g. PyPi).
> 
> I therefore push forward that the incubator will cease expecting java-based
> projects to publish artifacts with "-incubating" in the version string,
> with the understanding that:
> 
> - Incubating is a term used to refer to a project's stability, not a
> release's stability.  It is generally understood that incubating projects
> are not necessarily immature, but may have a potential of failing to become
> a TLP.
> - Podling releases are endorsed, the podling itself is not endorsed.  We
> will not approve releases that are blatantly against ASF policies.
> 
> 
> [ ] +1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects
> [ ] +/0
> [ ] -1 Don't drop because
> 
> 
> [1]:
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#best-practice-maven
> 


 

-- 
Carsten Ziegeler
Adobe Research Switzerland
cziege...@apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org