community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Non-released Dependencies
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2014 09:20:08 GMT
Agreed that #2 is best.

(and I'll also note I was a bit slack with some commentary; releases need
to be signed, so a path/revision or git-tag is not necessarily a true
release; just trying to get across that you need a *specific* set of source
for a dependency)

Seems that Andreas is going to explore some options at dev@pdfbox.

Cheers,
-g



On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the key bit here is that releases of Apache projects must have an
> associated source release and have been voted on by the PMC making the
> release.
>
> If the project you depend on is an independent project, you need to
> remember that their -SNAPSHOT build is *not* a release. Therefore you need
> it to become a release to include it.
>
> You therefore have three choices:
>
> 1. Fork the code into your project and do a big-bang release... a rude
> option but once it's in your project your PMC can vote to release it.
>
> 2. Join the dependent project and help them get to a release
>
> 3. Find somebody outside the ASF (or at a minimum not wearing an ASF hat)
> and get them to fork the code you want and release that. Then you can
> depend on the non-ASF fork of the ASF project... again a rude option, but
> perhaps less so than #1
>
> I vote you go for #2. It plays best with community which is what we are
> here to foster
>
>
> On 25 July 2014 15:26, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [adding dev@community, as I believe this should go there...]
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vhennebert@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >...
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > there's an undergoing debate in the XML Graphics project about doing
>> > a release that has a dependency on a snapshot version of another
>> > (Apache, for that matter) project.
>> >
>>
>> The fact that it is an Apache project is *key* for my commentary below.
>> Don't take my words for external projects, please :-P
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I know there's a policy at Apache to not release a project that has
>> > non-released dependencies. The problem is, I don't know how I know
>> > that... I cannot seem to be able to find any official documentation that
>> > explicitly states it.
>> >
>>
>> That's why you can't find it... I don't recall any such "policy" (over the
>> past 15+ years I've been around) ... it just isn't a good idea. That's
>> all.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > The following link: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what is
>> > apparently not convincing enough. I'm answered that this concerns our
>> > own project but that it's fine to do an official release containing
>> > a snapshot binary.
>> >
>>
>> Well. You need to produce a full set of sources. No binaries. Those
>> sources
>> might be by-reference, but you definitely can't release a binary within
>> your source distribution.
>>
>> Even if that other Apache project had a release you're happy with, there
>> would be a source release available for it.
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Saying that every binary artefact has to be backed by source code and
>> > that, in the case of a snapshot, we have to point to some Subversion
>> > revision number, is apparently not convincing enough either. Despite the
>> > obvious dependency nightmare that that would cause to users (and, in
>> > particular, Maven users and Linux distributions).
>> >
>>
>> Pause. This is not negotiable. You *must* have a source release. If you do
>> that through a signed tarball, or through a git tag, or a Subversion
>> revision number ... all of these identify a *specific* set of source code.
>> That satisfies the need.
>>
>> You raise some concerns about nightmares... sure. Telling users "you must
>> get r123 of /some/path, for $LIBRARY" is not exactly friendly. BUT: it
>> satisfies all release requirements. It will specify the exact dependency.
>> Good to go.
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Does anybody have any official reference to point at, that I may have
>> > missed? More convincing arguments, legal reasons (should I forward to
>> > legal-discuss@)?
>>
>>
>> Much of this kind of stuff is "institutional knowledge" because having to
>> write down "rules" and "procedures" just sucks. It is such a rare event,
>> that it is best to leave it for the particular situation.
>>
>> There are no legal ramifications, if you're talking about a sibling Apache
>> project.
>>
>> Now... you *should not* do any sort of release of a sibling. That will
>> screw over that community. (version skew, unsupported bits, issue
>> tracking,
>> blah blah)
>>
>> I believe you have two options: fork their code into your project, and do
>> some appropriate subpackage renaming to clarify it is distinct. Or,
>> ideally, you join *their* community and help them cut a release, and then
>> base your code on that.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message