Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of hedhman@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.227 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:from:organization:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:sender;
        b=jM+4vO+/xFzjB+0WXGJyEwYvp84Ke+Fp0ZRvTUJIkLWDvDmIojlc6faYCWNBpr5XtOtD+zs/1Vun1VfhrqFB3Hf+8U8W1HWccUc1bhMKFIRt2UAsy7x11DhUGp5t+EdSIHXTbloD2mAqntULOI4aR6U6ICg7/LZsRtXmTJ4h6hM=
From: Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org>
Organization: Private
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:54:35 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
References: <44C79027.4090506@odoko.co.uk>
 <94C8244B-A314-4736-8444-FEE81D15FA37@SUN.com>
 <5c902b9e0607300958o7fec47ebo6fa497c65d470c7b@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5c902b9e0607300958o7fec47ebo6fa497c65d470c7b@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200607310254.35188.niclas@hedhman.org>
Sender: Niclas Hedhman <hedhman@gmail.com>

On Monday 31 July 2006 00:58, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> Legally, you may not call it Apache Wicket

It is known as Wicket and will remain to be known as Wicket.

> (if that's the name you decide on), and as a matter of policy, 
> I'd frown upon such 'backporting' behavior.

Not sure what part you are frowning upon. Considering the strong legacy of 
compatibility in Apache Web Server, still supporting 1.3, I strongly doubt 
that you frown upon leaving existing users in the dry.

Possible scenario; PersonA contributes some patch to Wicket 2.0. A wicket team 
member takes that patch and also applies it to Wicket 1.2.2 at SF.net with 
the proper attributions. Now, are you saying that this is unacceptable 
behavior?? It is definitely not against the license. Is it against 
the 'spirit of incubation', or some other guideline, rule or principle?

> 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."

Yep. Wicket OTOH is already under ALv2, so that particular aspect is not a 
concern.

> - Keep their existing 'branch' wherever it is (i.e. sf.net) - do not
> ever backport anything that is in the Apache SVN repository.  Treat
> them as a chinese wall - nothing should mix except for the initial
> code grant.  Code can only go into both repositories IF the
> contributor explicitly says that it can do so or commits them into
> both trees themselves.  

Sounds a bit harsher than it really is, no?

Nevertheless, AFAIU the 2.0 already exist as a separate branch, and is so 
different that automated backporting is not possible.
So, the team is already working off two branches, and if one of those moves to 
Apache, it shouldn't change much of the work flow.

I think the Wicket team have no problem complying with this. (but see 
the 'scenario' above)

> At no time, does a 1.2.x release *ever* get 
> cut from our repositories.

Of course.

> - No releases can be cut from the Incubator until the CLAs and
> software grants are on file.  (All other disclosure requirements must
> be met too.)

Of course.

> - All new development comes to the Incubator.  We expect no more
> 'major' releases to be made outside of the ASF.  

Expected.
The change to 2.0 is happening because of a lot of experience in the 1.x life 
span, that they want to apply. It is a convenient point in time to enter 
Apache Incubator, as it otherwise would also constitute another incompatible 
change.

> - 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.)

Hear ya!

> - 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.

Perhaps the user list stays where it is, and the user list for 2.0 is 
established closer to the release of 2.0. Makes more sense to me.


Cheers
Niclas

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