Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Cc: jsecurity-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-Id: <8BF11B55-F912-41AD-B4ED-726F69395453@toolazydogs.com>
From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <list@toolazydogs.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <44b57a610807280814t715a6f6u963c2bac7b61cb45@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 v926)
Subject: Re: SVN move
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:28:39 -0700
References: <42A57AF7-30AB-4C8E-B19E-DC23B8418318@toolazydogs.com>
 <FE6091B9-D526-4563-A293-742E40A241F3@toolazydogs.com>
 <44b57a610807251307o30292394n9c009bce01fc1284@mail.gmail.com>
 <02732DDA-C4C5-4012-8DA7-3F0BDCE6EA55@toolazydogs.com>
 <52C6497E-DBA0-420E-BE29-833DF31EE230@SUN.com>
 <985FC28C-96AE-4194-B909-0EB8C9EC7F83@toolazydogs.com>
 <488A9EFA.3020304@rowe-clan.net>
 <A1A548BF-377C-46CD-92BA-B41AE9D079F5@toolazydogs.com>
 <488B6507.9090001@dubioso.net>
 <E81EF4FC-B681-4725-BC37-B55AE645F5CC@toolazydogs.com>
 <44b57a610807280814t715a6f6u963c2bac7b61cb45@mail.gmail.com>


On Jul 28, 2008, at 8:14 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote:

>>
>> Where I think that there is a problem is when they ditch their old
>> infrastructure and exclusively use ASF's infrastructure to build,  
>> maintain,
>> and release non-ASF releases.  To be sure in the case of JSecurity  
>> the final
>> artifacts will not use the ASF mirrors but that does not  hide the  
>> fact that
>> they intend to build and maintain non-ASF releases exclusively  
>> using our
>> infrastructure.
>>
>> Craig says that's fine.
>>
>> I think that they should release and maintain their new and earlier  
>> non-ASF
>> releases on the infrastructure that they currently have or else use  
>> ours and
>> follow the ASF/Incubator guidelines.
>
>
> If it turns out that it is *not* OK to do this (use ASF infrastructure
> exclusively to maintain our few remaining non-ASF releases), I'm  
> perfectly
> ok with that and of course would respect the Incubator's wishes -  
> but I
> myself would ask our current JSecurity team to delay the code import  
> into
> the ASF.
>
> I don't think I would be willing to perform code modifications and  
> patches
> for the next Release Candidate release(s) and maybe the few point  
> releases
> that might follow on two different repositories.  That's a nightmare  
> to
> maintain - "Did I apply this patch to project-from-server-A and
> project-from-server-B?  Hrm.. I can't remember if I JavaDoc'd that  
> method
> correctly in both locations...".  No thanks :)
>
> Sure, this might delay our incubation process another few weeks or  
> even a
> month or two, but I don't mind that at all - I feel comfortable that
> JSecurity will succeed at the ASF, so I don't feel a little extra  
> delay
> would hurt things for us much...  This is much less painful IMO than
> manually mantaining code in two separate locations.

Let's turn this around and look at it from a different light.  What's  
stopping us from doing a 0.9.0 release in the incubator?  I'm guessing  
that you need the packages to be the same?


Regards,
Alan


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