www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu>
Subject Re: Clarification on the release requirements
Date Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:50:52 GMT
I'm glad to wake up and find the discussion going in the direction that 
I was hoping it would, that is towards writing these things down and 
then getting some member approval to make sure it gets the "official" 
stamp and associated project buy in.

The fundamental difference seems to be that Maven uses the svn tag as 
the master source to produce both the source archives and binaries that 
are voted on, and Httpd first makes a source archive that is then used 
to build. These are slight differences on the same theme. (there is a 
further issue for some maven projects that don't produce the 
encompassing archive but that can be corrected).

Assuming the build must execute on a source archive and not a tag, we 
would have to build new tooling to support it. I don't think however 
that this would be used very much outside of the ASF. I've trained 
hundreds of users on the maven release process at many companies and 
never once have I been asked to first produce a source archive and then 
use it to build. Everyone considers the tag to be sancrosanct and they 
want to be sure that they can build from the tag, not some tarball that 
is disconnected from the scm.

That's not to say that we won't create a solution for ASF projects, but 
it seems to be that everyone should be in agreement that this is a 
required shift before we go and build a one-off chunk of code. I would 
like to suggest that given so many projects are doing it differently for 
such a long period of time, that perhaps this subtle change is really 
not such a fundamental problem provided that the main goal is to produce 
a buildable sourcearchive and that the order is less important.

David Crossley wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> While I absolutely agree with this process, without board approved documentation

>>> it gets left up to each PMC to determine this. I'm sure Brian's goal is to 
>>> understand the recommendation and then modify the appropriate Maven components

>>> so that this process can be followed.  Is there no way to get this posted on
>>> site so that it is crystal clear and won't get changed unless the membership

>>> expresses a desire to change it?
>> Policy documents like this one are delegated to infrastucture, which is supposed
>> to be overseeing all commits to the /dev section of the website.
> And ASF Members have commit rights and can participate at Infra.
> Committers can also participate and may be enabled via the
> "infrastructure-interest" group.
> See "Updating the Infrastructure web site"
> http://www.apache.org/dev/infra-site.html
> -David
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message