www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: What is the top level of the source tree and what exactly is an Apache distribution?
Date Tue, 17 Sep 2013 11:38:24 GMT
Hi Stephen,
I'll start by giving my opinions to your "view". Let's see how close we areā€¦ Can broaden
discussion to the rest of your note as needed.

On Sep 16, 2013, at 2:50 AM, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail.com> wrote:

> My view
> ------------
> My understanding is that an Apache distribution has to be voted on by the PMC, otherwise
it is not an Apache distribution. If anything in source control is an Apache distribution
then running a CTR SCM policy for an Apache TLP would be impossible and RTC would require
3x+1 binding votes for every commit rendering the "convenience" of a commit bit on a TLP anything

Apache *releases* must be voted on by the PMC. Releases are the ASF's mechanism for distributing
our products for general users.

However, releases are not the only *distributions* of our software. Our source code control
systems also distribute our products. We can't openly develop our software without also distributing
it while under development. Typically, these distributions are used by the Apache committers
and contributors. Not that it necessarily matters for this discussionā€¦ But I'll note that
there's nothing that prevents general users from consuming these source code distributions,
also. Especially when a *distribution* exactly/closely matches a projects *release* (i.e.
a tag). 
> So then I make the argument that only one of the following two postulates are true:
> * There is no requirement for the PMC to vote on Apache distributions and we can just
let committers throw out releases without having PMC vote threads.

Yes. There is no requirement for projects to vote on these development *distributions*. But
projects must vote on their *releases*.

> * Source control is not an Apache distribution and hence we do not need to have LICENSE
and NOTICE files in source control, it can be a nice convenience, but there is no *requirement*.

No. That is not true.

> Can the foundation please resolve which of the above two statements is actually true
(or maybe someone could check in a http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/LICENSE and a http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/NOTICE
so that all TLPs using Subversion would be absolved of having to worry about what they have
in their source trees)


So, then there is the question of what exactly constitutes a distribution? There are many
ways of organizing a project's directory structure. A common format used by many of our java
projects is:


In my opinion, each of these are a "distribution". We may tell someone to checkout https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/foo/trunk.
Or that problem has been fixed in https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/foo/branches/1.0/

Those are examples. I'm using svn. Projects may have their own preferences for organizing
their software and mechanisms for handling releases. So, I don't think one size fits all.

We can discuss Maven's directory structure and release mechanisms. I know you gave examples
in your email(s). But right now I'm hoping to give insomnia the rest of the night off...


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

View raw message