incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andre Fischer ...@a-w-f.de>
Subject Re: Category-B tarballs in SVN (was Re: External libraries)
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:15:29 GMT
On 13.01.2012 13:31, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> <rgardler@opendirective.com>  wrote:
>> On 13 January 2012 01:31, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Ross Gardler
>>> <rgardler@opendirective.com>  wrote:
>>>> It was said in reply to the VP Legal
>>>> affairs saying "That [holding MPL code in SVN] normally is highly
>>>> discouraged / not allowed."
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are putting words in Sam's mouth.    The topic there was about
>>> forking MPL components, i.e., having an Apache project act as a
>>> maintainer of a fork of MPL and doing MPL development.
>>
>> If I am putting words in Sams mouth then I apologise. However, the
>> goal posts appear to be moving here. I thought I was safe quoting from
>> that thread since you referred to it yourself, indicating that it gave
>> approval for what you want to do. It can't be relevant in your defence
>> and not in mine.
>>
>> Are we talking at cross-purposes?
>>
>
> I'm trying to develop understanding.  To me it appears (and this is my
> personal opinion only) that you are cobbling together quotes out of
> context to support an undocumented position.  So yes, we are talking
> at cross-purposes.
>
> It might be worth going back to the IPMC discussion from December on
> "concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases".  There
> were a lot of good comments, along the lines of:
>
> "there aren't that many rules so before assuming something really is a
> rule try to find where its document that it is, and if no one can find
> that doc then
> its not a rule. Also, rules are only defined on policy pages so just
> because some "guide" type page says something doesn't make it true."
>
> or
>
> "Not everything was written in docs, and still not.
> Not everything needs to be, as lots is common sense.
> The email archives are "documents".
>
> Once one understands the principles of why the ASF as a foundation
> needs to do certain things, then the so-called rules are obvious
> consequences."
>
> and
>
> "Enumerate these principles and demonstrate the logical entailment of
> source releases."
>
>
> That is why it would be particularly useful if you could articulate
> some reasoning behind your statements, rather than just say something
> not-very-useful like "I am the policy book" and claiming some
> unwritten policy without even defining what that unwritten policy is.
> If you explain the reasoning, then this and other things should amount
> to "common sense".

+1

-Andre

 >[...]

Mime
View raw message