Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 88688 invoked from network); 30 May 2008 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 May 2008 16:16:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 44344 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2008 16:16:13 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 43847 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2008 16:16:12 -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 43836 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2008 16:16:12 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 09:16:12 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=10.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jhaile@fastmail.fm designates 66.111.4.25 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.111.4.25] (HELO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.25) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 16:15:24 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8C9111E62 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 12:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 30 May 2008 12:15:41 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: d3ZxKrjfCJCVONmexd7r/REC+y7W/iKPZY0TLJtN+2BZ 1212164140 Received: from [172.16.2.250] (adsl-61-102-153.asm.bellsouth.net [208.61.102.153]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 816942B44D for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 12:15:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <1C96CB2D-0768-4E3B-8346-C6FF26BBB0FA@fastmail.fm> From: Jeremy Haile To: general@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <44b57a610805300843t32db4cf5te04e2537bf72fc87@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: maven repository Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 12:15:37 -0400 References: <44b57a610805300806k5fd16fe6se18ce63b1568c459@mail.gmail.com> <44b57a610805300843t32db4cf5te04e2537bf72fc87@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.919.2) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Yeah - coming from the point of view of a project working on entering the incubator, I'd rather have tough IP restrictions on entering the incubator, but once I'm in the incubator have an environment that most effectively promotes growth and adoption of the project. Rather than feeling like we are taking a step backwards in adoption by joining the incubator. Currently JSecurity has a community, is published to Maven, and does regular releases. If joining the incubator meant that we were no longer approved to do releases to our community, that seems like a hindrance to adoption. If people can no longer download releases via Maven without going through annoying steps that make it seem immature and unreliable, then that's a hindrance to adoption. I'd much rather have a strict process up front that get it IP clearance and then make it easy for people to adopt, than to enter the incubation process and have hindrances put in place. Perhaps one idea is to not treat all projects or incubation proposals the same. Some projects could choose to enter the incubator now, have access to Apache's infrastructure, etc. and gain IP clearance at some later date where they can then do releases. Other more established projects could choose to front-load the IP clearance and have that occur before they are even accepted. In those cases, once they are accepted, they can immediately continue to do releases and foster the community growth. Just throwing out my 2 cents... On May 30, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > Hrm - I thought you had to have IP clearance before you even were > accepted as a podling. Or maybe its just that Alan is such a great > Champion for us, that he helped us along that path before we even > submitted our proposal ;) > > Under this assumption (that IP clearance exists already), it makes > much more sense to allow the podling to publish approved releases to > the central repository, but still under an > org.apache.incubator.projectname group id to maintain > convention/simplicity. > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:38 AM, James Carman > wrote: >> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Haile >> wrote: >>> So it seems that a valid question is whether or not publishing to >>> one >>> repository or another indicates an endorsement. >> >> Yes, that's certainly a valid question. Again, that's just my >> personal point of view. >> >> The biggest problem with incubator projects (again my opinion) having >> releases is the IP clearance. Perhaps there should be multiple >> stages >> of incubation. The first stage should be where you verify the IP >> clearance and projects in that stage shouldn't be allowed to do >> releases at all. Then they might graduate to the next stage and that >> would be a "community building" stage where we make sure the project >> has enough community around it. These projects should be able to >> provide incubating releases. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org