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 manageme
-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
-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 importa
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
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 pro
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 inc
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 refactor
> 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:
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
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
inclu
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
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 g
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 cod
+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 practi
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 rece
-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 throug
> 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 un
-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 a
18 matches
Mail list logo
