community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William A Rowe Jr <>
Subject Re: Addition to the project maturity model
Date Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:25:28 GMT
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:33 AM, Mark Thomas <> wrote:

> All,
> After a discussion on the general@incubator.a.o mailing list [1], I'd
> like to propose the following addition to the project maturity model.
> RE50
> The release process is documented and repeatable to the extent that
> someone new to the project is able to independently generate a release
> build.

Release 'build'? That sounds very .jar'ish to me :)

In non-JVM environments, we may have radically different ways of building,
even on linux a project may have autoconf vs cmake as parallel options.
No single release manager is expected to try all alternatives across some
broad array of target platforms.

The project must also demonstrate that they have documented how-to
for users/consumers to generate a binary build from the release package.
In terms of maturity, that might start out as windows-only or unix-only
or java-only, but as the project evolves more supported build platforms,
they will have the template for adding more build how-to documentation.

Since binaries are not releases, is it enough to say 'release package'
to capture the essence of tarball, .zip, or whatever the sources include?
If a project wants to include the .jar file as a side effect of creating the
release sources, I think 'release package' covers that to.

Otherwise, strongly +1 to this suggestion.

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