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
 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksoh6aSmn3b=dkoDzXvmYYh6KwkdTC=VcF+Eb+fjPvUHXqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAP-ksogNw3hy0RrUOBELkShLrdABb5Vhz6Uw6cp-8KFsFTJMNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksohHWp4YuCmo32=k0MhnDUON-Dhf2ZBrQaUDq42a9asuCw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS6=7jtBppzByUm8+TsVRDocoGMtKU3X854P-HdxrUHLC-JkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoh+rP+-Yu5FjCb4PhHDV4=Uw0DX-HEmk6hABsZJeDwOnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP-ksoh6aSmn3b=dkoDzXvmYYh6KwkdTC=VcF+Eb+fjPvUHXqw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:11:59 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CABD8fLWYaNJrWvhPZm9tLXt_hOC=OY3-V+iEAjHdFQtQ8BmgnA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache OpenOffice Community Graduation Vote
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Just because some other podlings have released binary artifacts does
not mean AOO can base their entire release strategy on binaries.

As Marvin has said: source releases are the primary release mechanism.

Binaries are and should be a distant second.

I would also state that continuing to argue is symptomatic of a
failure to understand and integrate with the Foundation's thoughts on
the matter. Or to at least politely discuss the situation on
legal-discuss.

Cheers,
-g

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Per the IPMC's "Guide to Successful Graduation" [1] this is the
>>>> optional, but recommended, community vote for us to express our
>>>> willingness/readiness to govern ourselves.  If this vote passes then
>>>> we continue by drafting a charter, submitting it for IPMC endorsement,
>>>> and then to the ASF Board for final approval.   Details can be found
>>>> in the "Guide to Successful Graduation".
>>>>
>>>> Everyone in the community is encouraged to vote.  Votes from PPMC
>>>> members and Mentors are binding.  This vote will run 72-hours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ] +1  Apache OpenOffice community is ready to graduate from the
>>>> Apache Incubator.
>>>> [ ] +0 Don't care.
>>>> [ ] -1  Apache OpenOffice community is not ready to graduate from the
>>>> Apache Incubator because...
>>>
>>> In my opinion, the issue of binary releases ought to be resolved before
>>> graduation.
>>>
>>> If the podling believes that ASF-endorsed binaries are a hard requirement,
>>> then it seems to me that the ASF is not yet ready for AOO and will not be
>>> until suitable infrastructure and legal institutions to support binary
>>> releases (sterile build machines, artifact signing, etc) have been created
>>> and a policy has been endorsed by the Board.
>>>
>>> One possibility discussed in the past was to have downstream commercial
>>> vendors release binaries a la Subversion's example, which would
>>> obviate the need for all the effort and risk associated with providing support
>>> for ASF-endorsed binaries.  For whatever reason, the AOO podling seems not to
>>> have gone this direction, though.
>>>
>>
>> Let's look at the the TLP's that the IPMC has recommended, and the ASF
>> Board has approved in recent months.  Notice that a fair number of
>> them releae source and binaries, as does the OpenOffice podling:
>>
>
> Some further documentation of IPMC practice in this regard:
>
>> Apache Lucene.Net -- releases source and binaries
>>
>
> IPMC voted to approve release, and vote post pointed to both source
> and binary artifacts:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/mt3xthcqqng7ftnw
>
>> Apache DirectMemory -- releases source only
>>
>> Apache VCL -- releases  source only
>>
>> Apache Hama --  releases source and binaries
>>
>
> The people.a.o directory that was voted on by the IPMC is gone now.  I
> suspect it included binaries as well. Certainly now that the podling
> has graduated their release candidates include binaries:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/dist/0.5-RC4/
>
>> Apache MRUnit --  releases source only
>>
>> Apache Giraph -- releases source only
>>
>> Apache ManifoldCF -- releases source and binaries
>>
>
> Their most recent vote was withdrawn because they graduated before the
> vote completed, but that IPMC vote post also pointed to both source
> and binary artifacts:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/op7ofi2gudwfov3z
>
> So the recent practice of the IPMC has been to approve releases with
> source and binaries, but also to graduate podlings that do so.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> So I'm not quite sure in what way the ASF "is not ready" for a TLP
>> that releases binaries, or what additional legal or procedural work
>> needs to be done to enable this.  As far as I can tell ASF projects
>> release binaries today.
>>
>> I agree, sterile buildbots and code signing are good things to have,
>> and we are working with Infra on this today, and would continue to
>> peruse these avenues as a TLP.
>>
>> In any case, shouldn't the question be whether the podling is ready
>> for the ASF rather than whether the ASF is ready for the poding? ;-)
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

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