lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: discussion about release frequency.
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 20:11:42 GMT

On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Robert Muir wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Why don't we just leave this as this:
> 
> Those of us who want Maven supported as part of the release need to get our stuff together
by the next release or else it will be dropped.  That means making sure the artifacts are
correct and easily testable/reproducible.  If we can't do that, then I agree, it should be
a downstream effort, at least until we all realize how many people actually use it and then
we revisit it at the next release.
> 
> 
> But I'm not sure this is the best solution? If we can push this downstream, so that the
release manager has less to worry about (even with testable artifacts etc, the publication
etc), why wouldn't we do that instead?
> 

Because it's not authoritative.  How would our users know which one is the official one? 
By publishing it under the ASF one with our signatures we are saying this is our official
version.  We would never claim that the Solr Commons CSV one is the official Commons jar,
it's just the official one that Solr officially uses.  It's a big difference.   Besides, it's
not like the iBiblio repo is open to anyone.  You have to apply and you have to have authority
to write to it.  For the ASF, there is a whole sync process whereby iBiblio syncs with an
ASF version.  In other words, we are the only ones who can publish it to the same space where
it is currently published.

-Grant


Mime
View raw message