www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Clarification on the release requirements
Date Sat, 09 May 2009 20:02:42 GMT

On May 9, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Brian Fox wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Lawrence Rosen  
> <lrosen@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Henri Yandell projected:
> > * Two lawyers wondered why this was wasting space on legal-discuss@.
>
> The rest of your 11 "clarifications" of project release made a  
> little sense
> but, speaking for myself, this one misrepresents my opinion. (I  
> won't speak
> for Jeff, though.)
>
> I think this is a very important topic to bring up at ASF, and I  
> honestly
> believe that Roy's words, and a detailed description of the process  
> you use
> to release software (as that process has evolved over time), ought  
> to be
> carved somewhere on the ASF website. New members like me and new  
> software
> projects that seek to join ASF would find this information useful.
>
> I originally had hopes that we could drive this to some consensus  
> and carve it and begin the process of bringing projects into  
> compliance with whatever was decided. Unfortunately, the thread got  
> hijacked to a non-publically archived list (site-dev) where there  
> apparently is no voting. People just make patches and the few people  
> watching that list offer suggestions which may or may not be  
> included (or wiped away with whole new patches) and then the  
> documents are simply changed. If you're a member and have access to  
> those archives, I suggest you take a read for yourself, perhaps it  
> will be eye-opening for you as it was for me.
>
> The current changes that resulted from this didn't really go too far  
> over what was there and have the unfortunate side effect that there  
> is still some discrepancy in the oral tradition and what everyone  
> does, meaning this will come back eventually.

 From my point of view that is an accurate but rather polite  
description of what happened.  I'm rather disappointed but don't have  
time to pursue it further right now.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
>
> And as a trademark lawyer for ASF, I'm really interested to  
> understand the
> technical and voting process that members go through before the  
> Apache brand
> is stamped on our software.
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henri Yandell [mailto:hyandell@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 1:45 AM
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> > Subject: Re: Clarification on the release requirements
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen@rosenlaw.com 
> >
> > wrote:
> > >> > Can we get this carved in marble somewhere? /Larry
> > >
> > > Jeff Thompson responded:
> > >> That would have to be a pretty big marble, or, I guess, very  
> small
> > >> writing. ...
> > >
> > > Perhaps Jeff will volunteer to summarize this thread as ten bullet
> > items?
> > > :-)
> >
> > * Roy declared official policy based on tribal knowledge as known to
> > some sect at Apache (the C guys as usual).
> > * The next step is always a 100+ mail thread.
> > * Java guys in general professed ignorance to mask unhappiness at
> > having to be like the C guys.
> > * The Maven guys rallied around to push in the direction they're  
> already
> > going.
> > * Joe made a land grab for Infra on being not only the maintainers  
> of
> > dev/, but also the authors.
> > * General tech approach picks holes in the C method by suggesting  
> the
> > RM might have them vote on a trick.
> > * Jochen suggests a compromise also known as the current Java  
> approach.
> > * Git gets brought up because it's better than SVN.
> > * Two lawyers wondered why this was wasting space on legal-discuss@.
> > * Henri offended everyone by making rude and incorrect statements
> > regarding the thread.
> >
> > As a special bonus - #11:
> >
> > * Nothing much happens. Life goes on as usual in projects using a
> > perfectly reasonable release process in most people's eyes, dev/  
> gets
> > something put in it that will still cause arguments and as no one is
> > told there has been a critical change it takes years to get out
> > through social networking where people use the dev/ page as
> > justification of their read. Hopefully we only end up with one set  
> of
> > opinions floating out there, but more likely it ends up splintering
> > into three separate interpretations that end up as a thread on a
> > random mailing list 2 years later to deal with yet another detail.
> >
> > Personal thoughts.....
> >
> > If the unit tests pass, the release is good. What's all this "and we
> > test it on our particular platform before a +1"? [yeah, turns out  
> the
> > testing you do is dependent on the project and I work on easy
> > projects].
> >
> > Sod the "you must build a source release, then build the binary".  
> It's
> > easy enough to do what we're all doing and add a step to confirm  
> that
> > the binary we build from the source release matches our binary
> > release.
> >
> > If someone does not believe that the release manager built from the
> > SVN tag, then they can also build source from SVN and compare.
> >
> > I'm amazed there's not been a suggestion that we build an  
> application
> > to solve it. That's the real technical Godwin's Law - when a process
> > is being argued about and someone starts saying we should write
> > software.
> >
> > -- looking forward to discussing this topic at ApacheCon --
> >
> > Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>


Mime
View raw message