harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Salikh Zakirov <sal...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] M3 milestone discussion
Date Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:54:13 GMT
Tim Ellison wrote:
> Agreed, and the problems with getting a JCK license to certify official
> releases have been well-documented.  We want to release a Java
> implementation, not something that is not quite Java.

Somehow I cannot understand how the "official" status of the release
is related to the "certification with JCK" status.
I understand the desire of releasing certified 1.0 (or is it 5.0?)
version, however, I cannot see why alpha or beta releases should
not be done before JCK certification.

Careful reading of Apache licensing policy [1] says that this is the
sort of decision done by PMC. However, it also says that anything
with non-released status should not be advertised outside of the mailing
list (i.e. on the web site), and therefore, should not be packaged
for end-users (i.e. Debian or Gentoo packages).

Thus, I understand what you are saying as "we should not yet advertise ourselves
outside of our mailing list". This is exactly opposite of my opinion, that
Harmony project need to start recruiting beta-testers (alpha-testers?)
in a wider audience.

This is also in contradiction with the fact of stable builds being announced
on the web site.

What I am suggesting, is 
(1) come up with a stable versioning scheme (FWIW, M1 has happened to DRLVM twice already),
(2) decide if the current status is alpha or beta
(3) release the next stable snapshot officially (following all the requirements [1])
    with either of alpha and beta status
    and all necessary notices about non-compatibility and non-certified status.
(4) remove the "they are not official releases of the Apache Harmony project" notices
    from the download page.
(5) and finally, encourage (rather than discourage) including these alpha releases
    to "unstable" areas of the popular Linux distributions

PMC may as well disagree with this suggestion, but it would be nice to hear where exactly
disagreement lies:

(a) if Harmony project should not seek for a wider tester base?
(b) if Harmony project should not encourage packaging for distributions?
(c) if Harmony project should not do uncertified alpha and beta releases?

[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what 

quote from Apache Releases FAQ [1]
> During the process of developing software and preparing a release, 
> various packages are made available to the developer community for testing purposes.

> Do not include any links on the project website that might encourage non-developers
> to download and use nightly builds, snapshots, release candidates, or any other
> similar package. The only people who are supposed to know about such packages are
> the people following the dev list (or searching its archives) and thus aware
> of the conditions placed on the package. If you find that the general public
> are downloading such test packages, then remove them.

View raw message