incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Date Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:30:18 GMT

On Jul 30, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Gwyn Evans wrote:

> On 30/07/06, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>> On 7/27/06, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com> wrote:
>> > > Can we take the code in the Apache incubator svn, build a  
>> release, and
>> > > release it on sf.net (our previous host) without branding it as
>> > > apache?
>> >
>> > "Backporting" the changes to sf.net doesn't appear to me to be an
>> > issue, since the Apache license is very permissive.
>>
>> Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket (if that's the name you
>> decide on), and as a matter of policy, I'd frown upon such
>> 'backporting' behavior.
>
> No need, the intention was to stick with the "Wicket" name for the  
> 1.* releases.
>
>> The problem that Roller did was that they took code that was in our
>> SVN repository, removed the license blocks and relicensed it to LGPL
>> (I think) and posted it to java.net.  In two words, "Uh, no."
>
> No, but not really equivalent, as we're already using the Apache  
> licence.
>
>> - All new development comes to the Incubator.  We expect no more
>> 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF.  For example, SA
>> continued their 2.6x line at sf.net and released bug fixes.  SA 3.x
>> was developed here at the ASF.  This is my concern with Celtix and
>> XFire, but they both promised that no new 'major' versions will be
>> released - only minor bug fixes, but no new features.
>
> I'm not sure about this, as an absolute prohibition would imply the
> 1.x stream would go into maintenance, which might be more restrictive
> than planned...

The main point for me is that you are forking the Wicket code to  
create the Apache project, and intent is everything. If you're  
planning on actively developing in the old community, I'd question  
the decision to come to Apache.
>
>> - Development lists for the next release move to the Incubator lists
>> here, while development discussions around previous versions need to
>> stay where they are now.  (i.e. no discussions around cutting 1.2.x
>> releases on our lists.)
>>
>> - User-focused lists can move to the Incubator lists now - they can
>> get support or whatever for older versions; but again, no development
>> discussions on older releases happen here.
>
> Hmm, no /discussions/ about making releases from elsewhere seems
> somewhat extreme, but I guess it's your ball, as it were.

So it's not a hard and fast rule. Your stated intent is to transition  
the old project to Apache, and use the Apache community for future  
development.

It would seem odd to transition the discussion of the old project on  
the Apache mailing lists, as the folks who follow the Apache lists  
would not be able to get the fruits of the discussion from Apache.  
And I'd like to see you transition feature discussions to the Apache  
project and Apache mailing lists.
>
> When you say "Incubator lists", are these really Incubator-specific
> such that they'd require user re-registration upon exit, or do you
> just mean Apache-hosted lists?

Separate topic. There is a lot of discussion in the incubator  
archives about what to call the aliases of incubating projects. I'm  
afraid that repeating that discussion on this thread would not be  
recommended.

Craig
>
> /Gwyn
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message