incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Date Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:31:19 GMT
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:06, Niall Pemberton
<niall.pemberton@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
>> It already has the Apache License (v2), and it uses a NOTICE file (per
>> the license), and our packaging is tighter/stronger than typical
>> Apache releases (per Justin's note). Are there other items to an
>> "Apache release" that are needed to demonstrate that the svn project
>> understands the proper release process?
>>
>> The 1.7 release is not on the schedule at all, while we're going to do
>> a 1.6.7 release in a few weeks.
>>
>> We're naturally very reticent to disrupt a prior-release branch with a
>> massive relicense.
>
> I found the above a bit misleading. From what I can see the current
> trunk for subversion (I guess thats going to be 1.7+) had the ALv2
> headers applied 4 months ago:
>
> http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn?view=revision&revision=38370
>
> But the 1.6.x branch is still using the old license headers:
>
> http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.6.x/
>
> So I guess(?) the subversion guys don't want to duplicate that effort
> on the 1.6.x branch.

It isn't so much an "effort" as "disruptive". We have very clear
versioning guidelines[1]. Changes across patch versions are
highly-restricted. A license change itself is disruptive, let alone
the effects across the entire source code base.

In essence, it is a policy decision derived from our versioning guidelines.

Cheers,
-g

[1] http://apr.apache.org/versioning.html

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


Mime
View raw message