incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Edward Capriolo <edlinuxg...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Toree's One Release Constraint
Date Fri, 20 May 2016 14:23:05 GMT
Would it be acceptable to develop a shim layer toree can link to that and
the provider is dropped in at runtime like the jdbc interface?

On Thursday, May 19, 2016, Craig Russell <craig.russell@oracle.com> wrote:

> I found Jim’s message from February 24 in which he says that for one
> release, he’s ok with having the LGPL dependency.
>
> Given that substantial progress has been made and continues to be made on
> getting the dependency relicensed, I expect that asking for permission for
> another release in the incubator with the same LGPL dependency should also
> be granted.
>
> Craig
>
> > On May 19, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Gino Bustelo <gino@bustelos.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > "one release constraint" as in we can only have one release with the LGPL
> > dependency. No other release until that dependency is resolved.
> >
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Mike Jumper <mike.jumper@guac-dev.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On May 19, 2016 10:30 AM, "Gino Bustelo" <gino@bustelos.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I write this to start a discussion about the "One release constraint"
> >>> placed on Toree and what I feel is an unreasonable constraint on a
> >> project
> >>> that is undergoing incubation. A brief background first...
> >>>
> >>> In Toree we have an LGPL dependency that is not a simple rip an
> replace.
> >>> The library is JeroMQ and it is a JVM binding to 0MQ. This is THE
> >> protocol
> >>> layer used in Jupyter between clients and kernels (Toree serves as a
> >>> Jupyter kernel). Over the past months, we've worked with the JeroMQ
> >>> community to help move along a license change to MPL v2 (
> >>> https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/327). The progress showed huge
> >>> promised at the start and we are down to 3 committers out of 31 who
> have
> >>> not responded. The JeroMQ community is moving towards code remediation.
> >>>
> >>> In my opinion, this effort shows great inter-OS community cooperation
> and
> >>> something that should be valued by Apache. Why rewrite and maintain
> code
> >>> that already exist? Why not allow the process to take place? Isn't that
> >>> what the incubation period is for? Allow projects to resolve concerns
> >>> before they graduate?
> >>>
> >>> So my question is, why one release? This has been our biggest
> impediment
> >> in
> >>> putting an official incubation release out. We are ready. We have all
> the
> >>> disclaimer in place alerting the user that Toree contains LGPL code.
> The
> >>> biggest concern is releasing and discovering a defect that we would not
> >> be
> >>> able to fix due to the "One release constraint".
> >>>
> >>> Again... I just wish to start the discussion and find a resolution that
> >>> will allow Toree to properly grow and move forward with its incubation.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Gino
> >>
> >> Hi Gino,
> >>
> >> What "one release constraint" are you referring to?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> - Mike
> >>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect
> craig.russell@oracle.com <javascript:;>
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>

-- 
Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than
usual.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message