Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 55491 invoked from network); 30 May 2008 15:06:35 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 30 May 2008 15:06:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 99100 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2008 15:06:36 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 98965 invoked by uid 500); 30 May 2008 15:06:35 -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 98954 invoked by uid 99); 30 May 2008 15:06:35 -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 08:06:35 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0 tests=SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [74.125.44.154] (HELO yx-out-1718.google.com) (74.125.44.154) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 15:05:48 +0000 Received: by yx-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 36so517370yxh.0 for ; Fri, 30 May 2008 08:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.68.2 with SMTP id q2mr8815798yba.88.1212159963702; Fri, 30 May 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.8.15 with HTTP; Fri, 30 May 2008 08:06:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <44b57a610805300806k5fd16fe6se18ce63b1568c459@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 11:06:03 -0400 From: "Les Hazlewood" Sender: les.hazlewood@anjinllc.com To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: maven repository In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7f8fd06e322a9513 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Noel, Could you please help me understand the fundamental reasons why this is important to the IPMC? I mean, I as an end-user could care less about if the dependency artifact is in incubation or not - as long as it solves the problems in the way the development team deems necessary, all I want to do is just have be accessible to me immediately. I don't care where it comes from. If it requires intervention on my part, I view that as a major pain, especially if it can knowingly be avoided. I would want things to be as automatic and hands-off as possible. I'm just genuinely trying to understand why the distinction is necessary. Thanks for clarifying my naivety, Les On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> it has now been clearly established that we need to move the >> repository. we're now just asking: where? > > As I said, Brett Porter's proposal, made early on in the thread, seemed > satisfactory. > >> asking podlings to publish through a secondary repository is both >> annoying and ineffective at making it explicit to people that >> they are using artifacts under incubation. this measure cuts >> against the grain of maven. > > I really don't care what cuts across the grain of Maven. I do care about > the established principle that people must make a deliberate decision to use > Incubator artifacts. If Maven would finally support enforcing signing of > artifacts, as they have been asked to do for years, we could use an > Incubator-specific signing key, forcing people to approve the use of > Incubator artifacts, regardless of download location. > > Rather than relax the principle to accomodate a defective tool, if Maven > cannot solve this problem, I'd be more inclined to ban the use of maven > repositories for Incubator artifacts. That is how strongly I feel about the > principle. > > By the way, there has been some talk in Infrastructure about shutting down > the ASF's repository entirely if Maven does not provide enforcement of > signed artifacts, due to security concerns. > > Look back over the years of debate on this issue, and I believe that you > will find I've been very consistent. I want Incubator projects to be able > to perform releases in order to grow their (developer) community, but we > also require that people be aware of the fact that they are not using > official ASF code, as noted by the disclaimer. > >> an easy and effective way to ensure that users know that they are using >> an artifact from the incubator would be to ensure that the group or >> artifact ID includes this information. > > End users don't read the POM. They just use it. So that is no solution at > all. The signing approach would be, IMO, a reasonable solution. It would > solve Les' issue -- users would simply have to agree to install the > Incubator-signed artifact(s), and thereafter they'd be fine. > > --- Noel > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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