incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Lambertus <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Guidelines for distribution of incubating artefacts on other platforms
Date Thu, 14 Feb 2019 03:12:41 GMT


> On Feb 12, 2019, at 11:36 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> 

>> Does this mean that we need a vote even for distribution of unreleased
>> material <https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution#unreleased>?
> 
> You are not allowed to distribute unreleased material outside the developer community.
[1] I would read that as users being outside the developer community.

OK, IPMC/member hat securely on. I’m not speaking for Infra here.

Releases on dockerhub, NPM, gradle, etc, etc, etc, etc, which are nominally tagged as “convenience
binaries” end up being far more widely spread than the “developer community” due to
the nature of those systems. 

There’s a lot of talk in this else-thread, and a lot of reticence to address the “we release
source, not binaries” issue. The reality is that end-users consume binaries. Unless you’re
a release manager for a major OS, nobody compiles source anymore. It’s the elephant in the
room, and what’s happening now is that binary objects are popping up all over the place.
I’m going to pick on Docker because I hate it so much: Infra has allowed a fair bit of leeway
here, they previously created only automated builds, but over time have allowed more general
access to projects in order to allow them to create nightlies, regenerate builds, and so forth,
because it was more efficient and expedient to do so. This is a double edged sword in that
we as the Foundation are allowing projects to work with their customer base without undue
restriction, but we have essentially zero control over what artifacts are released. Furthermore,
I don’t know that we have a lot of ability to stop it, short of curtailing access to the
official /u/apache/ namespace and other namespaces that Infra may control.

I think the discussions here and the framework that’s been offered by Justin is a fantastic
start, and I’m 100% in favor of it. I would like to see his guideline document posted somewhere
on cwiki so it doesn’t get lost in this thread. I would ultimately like both VP Legal and
Infra to assess it, so that everyone’s on the same page in terms of what’s “allowed,”
because right now, I think we’re all flying by the seat of our pants.

-Chris











> 
>> Incubator-weex had used unofficial release without vote to get quick
>> feedback from users before we knew it could break the rule of Apache
>> release. *According to my understanding, any format of release on any
>> platform needs a vote even if it is unofficial, snapshot, nightly build and
>> etc..* Correct me if I am wrong.
> 
> Well a snapshots shot or nightly may be OK if it a) not use as a substitute for not voting
b) clearly marked so a user wouldn’t assume it a release and c) not placed in the main place
user go to to get it. I would guess that the above doesn’t qualify but check with your mentors.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#unreleased
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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


Mime
View raw message