incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "P. Taylor Goetz" <ptgo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE]: Apache Weex-incubating Release 0.12.0-RC3
Date Fri, 05 May 2017 01:31:04 GMT
Apologies for the auto correct.

Please sub "Niclas" for "Nicolas".

-Taylor

> On May 4, 2017, at 8:43 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Nicolas,
> 
> I understand and appreciate your passion, but would respectfully ask that you step down
your tone a little bit. Craig and John have both taken time to review the release candidate
(which you should be appreciative of -- getting IPMC members to review a release can be difficult).
In my opinion their reviews bring up some valid points that need to be considered.
> 
> Weex, by its nature, has a complicated codebase with respect to licensing and building
from source. It is a far cry from a java project with a Pom and a a "src" directory. It pulls
in a lot of different code that needs to be considered and evaluated. Going forward the (P)PMC
will need to understand that and as a TLP will need to be able to address issues accordingly.
> 
> What may seem like "Incubator hazing" right now, I would argue, is an exercise in making
sure the podling has what it takes to operate as a fully functional TLP. No two podlings are
the same, and some face certain burdens that others do not.
> 
> For now can we try to turn the thread toward a more constructive path that benefits both
the podling and the Incubator?
> 
> For what it's worth, I agree with some (not all) of the objections that have been raised.
So I would be a -1 as well.
> 
> -Taylor
> 
> 
> 
>> On May 4, 2017, at 3:02 AM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry, but if you don't know the background on that file, then perhaps you
>> think I am "not civil"... The fact is that NOTICE file doesn't require any
>> inclusion of what the project depends on, since they are not bundled, but
>> will be downloaded during build. In a previous round, we were told to take
>> it out of NOTICE for that reason (not bundled) and I argued that we should
>> keep it in to make it more reasonable for downstreams to get an idea of
>> what a binary distro will actually contain. This file was the compromise of
>> providing such details to downstream.
>> 
>> Now you say, "Uhhh, it is unclear..." when in reality it would be even more
>> unclear if we left it out, as some people on this very list pushed for on a
>> previous RC.
>> 
>> So, yes, I get pissed off as well. The incubator over time is getting more
>> and more intolerant at podling's first release, and I think it is the wrong
>> way to go. It is disheartening... truly...
>> 
>> 
>> Niclas
>> 
>>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Craig Russell <apache.clr@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm going to call foul on this one.
>>> 
>>> If you cannot be civil, then leave the discussion to others.
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>>> On May 3, 2017, at 7:24 PM, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> BUT ALSO figuring out what to start looking for. For fak sake,
>>>> man.... Get a grip on reality!
>>> 
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
>>> clr@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
>> http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java

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


Mime
View raw message