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: domain of jukka.zitting@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.198.242 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=anVWWs0CNrYHz3UT87EFv3g97cbFsvpknGVtUOlsRWMxUFju+4etgXTTqpO3ugrpBt
         Z3PuNYqZp8QY/vl53VvllUvNObFkLUS9G96KwBc33D+6qGMHXAS9ataPBigMl9fzCTCt
         Nbea9p+u0DpHUQF5Mq2KqvgQ33Zh6YBfT/tEQ=
Message-ID: <510143ac0809280859pc4044d8ub2a5fa57b6931f09@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:59:10 +0200
From: "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: On incubating releases
In-Reply-To: <19e0530f0809280719w7761929bn6df6777cc136a56a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <510143ac0809260541h21809939u9252426780f1b5c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <19e0530f0809271603v64c1470fve0b7f0066663f97f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9E2F4F95-536C-4E39-A030-3602B5B50692@maven.org>
	 <19e0530f0809271646q1e6f95aegb3c199a5bcd7eeda@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48DECD03.4030306@rowe-clan.net>
	 <19e0530f0809271723v546a3af5m324498fa979688e1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48DED9F4.3050200@rowe-clan.net>
	 <19e0530f0809280433n4d34bc7eqa7848fb4935a387a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0809280628r41044000od1f9edd0e4100b3b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <19e0530f0809280719w7761929bn6df6777cc136a56a@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll repeat again. The solution currently imposed is not ideal. It's
> not working. Problem is there is no other way.

Thanks for the patience! :-)

I'm not that interested in the technical issues. I just don't
understand why we'd want users of the example project B to go through
extra steps when we don't require that of the users of project A.

That's a pure policy issue. All the debate about separate repositories
and gpg trust chains is just implementation details. I'm trying to
understand the need of such a discriminating policy in the first
place, not the mechanisms we could use to implement it.

> For folks who are bundling, they can somehow embed that gpg key or
> some other way, they can signal maven that it's ok to not prompt the
> user again as Project B folks already taking responsibility for those
> specific dependencies.

If that's OK, i.e. that users of project B wouldn't need to go through
extra steps to get the incubating dependencies, then what's the point
of having a policy whose main purpose is to make those users go
through the extra steps?

BR,

Jukka Zitting

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