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 matthieu.riou@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.92.150 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=BX9nKrCIrq29oQQ4jzjAOTlSl0DNGOAvEsr2YFR/R3nXhspj/7ffnqvmazGmD2IzH4
         yz3piErq19nYYBuiPDH58FmYAaWhEOo4xK0D9bu3QfPagq9kRPevbzlO1Hdmblfa73+v
         b06LKeSaJMO6NZc8GmT27Uf/WlQBAy2T7BtBo=
Message-ID: <fbdc6a970809262027r23631140t1e75c1c512334cc6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:27:56 -0700
From: "Matthieu Riou" <matthieu@offthelip.org>
Sender: matthieu.riou@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: On incubating releases
In-Reply-To: <510143ac0809261301o6230aaeal865d123167235b6a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_9634_5820874.1222486076539"
References: <510143ac0809260541h21809939u9252426780f1b5c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1222434343.25640.22.camel@urgyen>
	 <510143ac0809260636x55addc23l195fb96e1f8d9e55@mail.gmail.com>
	 <fbdc6a970809260750n33b8046bif050ca3a63636ae3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0809261301o6230aaeal865d123167235b6a@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_9634_5820874.1222486076539
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitting@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Matthieu Riou <matthieu@offthelip.org>
> wrote:
> > Yep. But then many projects also choose to not push those betas in Maven
> > repos, only pushing the final.
>
> That's a fair point.
>
> > Btw just a small clarification on your a) in the e-mail that started this
> > thread. Apache releases in general do have more restrictions than plain
> > ALv2, some stuff that we disallow by policy are completely okay from a
> pure
> > licensing perspective.
>
> I was focusing more on what we require of downstream users.
>
> A key objection against distribution through the Maven repository has
> been that a downstream project should not be able to have an
> incubating dependency that gets automatically downloaded and used
> without manual intervention by the user. See comments like "it is too
> easy to depend on a release with transitive dependencies on incubating
> releases without even knowing it." As far as I understand this
> objection covers not only the Maven repository but any bundling of
> incubating releases. The end user should always explicitly download or
> at least acknowledge an incubating dependency. This is in direct
> conflict with ALv2.
>

Mmh that's not what I voted on. The vote was "Allow extra release
distribution channels like the central Maven repository" in context of the
incubator poddlings. It wasn't "Should we enforce the incubator disclaimer
to all downstream distributors". The second wouldn't make much sense, as you
point out it would effectively be a restriction on ALv2.

So what I voted against is /proactively/ placing our releases in the Maven
central repository, as I believe we should enforce our disclaimer as much as
we can. But it's clear to me that we can't enforce it to downstream
distributors or even to the Maven PMC if they chose to automatically publish
all incubator releases.

Matthieu


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

------=_Part_9634_5820874.1222486076539--