incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com>
Subject Re: Convenience Binary Policy
Date Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:08:51 GMT
Hello, Harbs,

My two cents:

Regardless of policy, I don't see how it makes sense from a governance
perspective for individuals to take controversial independent action on
something so important as release publication.  The mere fact that a dispute
exists should block such changes.

Can't the Flex PMC resolve this issue on that basis?

Marvin Humphrey

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Harbs <harbs.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification!
>
> I’m still not sure I understand. In plain English we seem to have these unresolved
questions:
>
> 1) (Re)compiling convenience packages with modifications to binary
>    dependencies after the release vote: Is that kosher or not?
> 2) If a binary dependency is added to a convenience package (instead of
>    being downloaded at install time) which results in the need to modify the
>    LICENSE / NOTICE file that’s accompanying the convenience package, does
>    that require a new VOTE and release or not?
> 3) In our case, the binary dependency is JBurg which is used as part of the
>    compiler process on the client’s machine. It’s not byte code that is
>    compiled into the resultant binary. The literal interpretation of the
>    text would lean towards saying that’s a no-no. I find it hard to believe
>    that that’s the intent. Is there any way to better clarify this point?
>
> Justin, please correct me if I missed any points or misrepresented any of
> them.
>
> Thanks,
> Harbs

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


Mime
View raw message