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: local policy)
From: "Noel J. Bergman" <noel@devtech.com>
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Release Requirements
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:13:10 -0400
Message-ID: <NBBBJGEAGJAKLIDBKJOPMEEFKNAC.noel@devtech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <6362125B-5E17-4A6B-AD45-F0515FD425F8@gbiv.com>
Importance: Normal

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > the source distributions unpacks to the same directory as the binary.
> > this is inconvenient for users. it's better to unpack the source to
> > incubator-activemq-4.0.2-src.

> I disagree with that.

> I don't think there is a generally accepted Apache way of separating
> these things, since the really important part is the source tree.
> I think it is important to make it clear that the binaries are just
> a convenience layer and not a separate distribution (even if they are
> distributed separately).

Can we agree that regardless of which style one might prefer the packaging,
there are multiple valid approaches, and that this level of difference
should not be a release criteria for the Incubator?

The Mentors can and should engage the community on best practices.  When the
Incubator PMC is presented with a release to approve, we ought to focus on
actual requirements, such as:

	Licensing
	Notification
	Signing (if we choose to enforce this)
     ...

And what those actual requirements are should be documented so that the
projects aren't surprised when submitting their request.  If we decide to
add requirements, we should agree to add them to the release requirements
document.

Agreed?

	--- Noel


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