incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: Simplifying podling infra
Date Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:23:08 GMT
For projects who have settled on a permanent
name, some things might be better.  But this
does not make life easier for the project nor
infra when our incubator-related infra depends
on naming conventions being followed, so this
decisions isn't purely an IPMC one.

> From: Jukka Zitting <>
>To: general <> 
>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 10:52 AM
>Subject: Simplifying podling infra
>Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
>site, svn, etc.) set up under and
>repos/asf/incubator. As a consequence they need to perform an extra
>infrastructure migration when they graduate. IMHO that's one infra
>migration too much.
>Would it make sense for us to allow podlings to be set up at their
>expected TLP locations right from the beginning? The IPMC would still
>be ultimately responsible for overseeing all these locations and we'd
>still expect the standard incubator disclaimers to be in place (we
>might even ask for extra ones in list footers, etc. if needed). If a
>podling ends up being retired or graduating into a subproject of
>another TLP, then an extra migration step would still be needed but
>the difference to status quo would be minimal.
>The downside of this change would be that the term "incubator" would
>become less prominent in the day-to-day operations of a podling. The
>upside would be reduced infra overhead, less community trouble caused
>by migrations and simplified incubation documentation (no need to
>distinguish between podling and TLP state in so many places).
>WDYT? If there's interest (and not many objections), we could try out
>the idea with a few upcoming podlings to see how it works in practice.
>Jukka Zitting
>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>For additional commands, e-mail:
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message