labs-labs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Danny Angus <>
Subject Re: Releases
Date Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:25:32 GMT
Thanks Shane, that's helpful

On 14 Mar 2017 9:52 p.m., "Shane Curcuru" <> wrote:

> (Not subscribed, reading on lists.a.o)
> Excellent discussion, and kudos to Danny for 1) starting it, and 2)
> keeping discussions going here.
> One problem that seems easier to solve is awareness.  Few people know
> about labs, few people talk about them, and they're not really easy for
> newcomers to find.  So any sort of blogs, tweets, and updates to places
> like the community.a.o website that help point to and explain labs are a
> good start to at least see if newcomers are interested.
> The other big value I think Labs could have is awareness for individual
> labs.  Github is certainly easy for hosting projects; but it's easy to
> get lost or overlooked on github.  If there were some way that Labs
> could make the repos committers can ask for be more visible, that might
> help.  I.e. not just "some random github repo from a random coder", but
> "here's an experimental project by an Apache Committer from projects X,
> Y, Z".  No idea how to do this though.
> On 2017-03-08 10:27 (-0400), Danny Angus <> wrote: > Hi
> > I would love to be the kind of guy who would set out a series of topics
> > that we need to discuss, contextualise them and initiate each one,
> > collating the output at the end, but I'm not.
> >
> > So I have a question for the people who have mentioned lack of releases
> as
> > a problem..
> >
> > The idea behind "no releases" was that a release implies that certain
> > standards common to the ASF are being met, standards which Labs don't
> > apply, and that if a lab needs to cut a release it probably has enough
> > users and maintainers to become a project of its own.
> The policy on Apache projects making software releases is clear, if a
> little wordy and finicky:
> This is important because of the phrase 'an official Apache release is
> one which has been endorsed as an "act of the Foundation" by a PMC.'
> Documenting this process - and having the board ensure that PMCs follow
> it - is a necessary step to ensure that software releases used by other
> people are acts of the ASF as an organization - and not an act of the
> release manager as an individual.
> This would become important if someone $evil ever wanted to sue the
> release manager; extremely rare, but if it ever happens, in theory they
> could go after your house, your car, your savings.  But if a PMC follows
> the policy, the $evil person would have to sue the ASF, which has
> insurance, lawyers, and could shield the individual release manager or
> developers on the project from the lawsuit.
> Labs could create finished software packages and make them available, as
> long as it's crystal clear to any possible user (and their lawyers) that
> the software package isn't an "Apache release".
> Brainstorm: one concept might be to have the Labs act like a PMC, and
> when someone wants to do a release, if they can get two other Lab PMC
> members to vote on it (by downloading, checking, and testing it), that
> could qualify as an Apache release.  If there's a lot of interest,
> that's a possibility to look into.  But requires each lab make it easy
> for other PMC members to vote +1 on their code.
> >
> > So my question to those people is this; Is it the lack of the formality
> and
> > assurance that is a problem or the lack of a build? Would "pre-release
> > downloads" be enough?
> >
> > d.
> --
> - Shane
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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