Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 73169 invoked from network); 1 Aug 2006 05:15:48 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Aug 2006 05:15:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 47094 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 05:15:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 46953 invoked by uid 500); 1 Aug 2006 05:15:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 46942 invoked by uid 99); 1 Aug 2006 05:15:45 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:15:45 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [66.112.202.2] (HELO mail.devtech.com) (66.112.202.2) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:15:44 -0700 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.devtech.com (JAMES SMTP Server 2.3.0rc1) with SMTP ID 246 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:15:23 -0400 (EDT) From: "Noel J. Bergman" To: Subject: RE: [PROPOSAL] Incubate Wicket Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 01:15:28 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <23eb48360607312108v7a56a193h2205b56be5f8b69a@mail.gmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Igor Vaynberg wrote: > we have been told that -incubating is nothing more then a > tag that the project is in the incubator and does not at > all reflect the quality of the release nor its readiness > for production use It is not a comment on the code quality at all, but it is a comment on whether or not users should expect the code to continue to be available from the ASF, and on whether or not (not, in this case), it in any way carries an ASF imprimatur. > the opposite view taken from the maven2 repo thread on this list The issue with the Maven 2 repositories is with the automated downloading of code from them. Without automated downloading, the user has to manually take action to download code from a URL, directory and artifact all carrying the Incubator brand, and where-in they will see a disclaimer notice in the browser. With Maven 2, that doesn't happen. So a separate repository is to provide clear separation to ensure and enforce the specific opt-in. It is a consistent message: users should be informed and specifically opting to use code from the Incubator. > wicket might be a good example and a chance for ASF incubator to learn of > the needs of these existing projects that want to join ASF and how to best > accomodate them. Actually, we've been through this before, but I think that, yes, we're going to use Wicket as the catalyst to push the issue to a documented consensus. One trick is likely to be how we can reduce pain while preventing (potential) brand abuse. --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org