Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gstein@gmail.com designates
 72.14.220.155 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=hXW4LPPYP+/eBUpuT1BmWE8FPWClcwUxtUsB57wzqJLnXJmSlTrwitzf5s0ETSwXeY
         r+vcfQ/L7mDAyLgTZ2JZ6xwYKgV8xlWY493MRPc1KcsaHIHLQYw5Iv7i4wXTCWdzxNg2
         NSfboHuAQXeJmXzMJ3FR1YEQZ57EHDdrvc/dg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55afdc850911110406r6e1fc168v4aa07889cba0987a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6cca3db30911041212na34324dp16d978c52ce9d2a1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e75283b10911050701o26969991i623d78bc95bb2c84@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4585c4a60911050720y78a443ffrce6a355934bce03b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6cca3db30911050820o62883dfdy6c5cc0dc8aa9a704@mail.gmail.com>
	 <918312fe0911050948p787d400dke472dd1402bcce61@mail.gmail.com>
	 <6cca3db30911061043n31e9b08fp5744645ae1d252c2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <F6409A24-D915-4C3C-A4B8-B0487B7263BA@SUN.com>
	 <6cca3db30911061130y5ed1f2c7q796e75f084cfad29@mail.gmail.com>
	 <55afdc850911110406r6e1fc168v4aa07889cba0987a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:31:19 -0500
Message-ID: <6cca3db30911110831s3e3f89di4539bff17b411ac7@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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