www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Expanding release-policy#compiled-packages for artifact repositories
Date Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:39:07 GMT
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:04 PM Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:23 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Based on discussions that have come up in the past, would it be OK to add
> > the following verbiage (or something like it) to [1].
> >
> > "Once the compiled package(s) have been created, projects may publish
> these
> > packages to appropriate artifact repositories.  Apache provides direct
> > access to publish artifacts via Maven Central.  Projects may publish
> > released build artifacts directly to npm, pypi, rubygems, etc.  PMCs may
> > also request access, via infra[link to
> > https://www.apache.org/dev/infra-contact], to our Bintray Organization
> for
> > additional hosting options."
> >
> > [1]: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages
>
> All these things are already allowed.  It is not necessary to modify the
> policy itself to allow them.
>
> It is also undesirable to expand the canonical policy text -- we have a
> huge
> problem with bloated, unfocused, redundant, stale overdocumentation at the
> ASF.  The canonical policy is designed to be compact, so that our
> contributors
> can grok the totality of what is officially required with as little effort
> as
> possible; expanding the policy text undermines that purpose.
>
> I suggest instead approaching this as a proposal to add to the Release FAQ.
> With that in mind...
>
>
I may have a bad link, but did you mean this page or somewhere else?

http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#faq

I'll note on that page is the same "maven specific" problem.


> I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve with this addition.
> Can you provide links to some conversations where confusion is occurring?
>
>
Here's the most recent:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c5e45af3b73c1eb519dad38f639b5adbe30cf598e0f80b51c261d9b1@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E





> The proposed text also has problems with both correctness and emphasis.
>
>     Once the compiled package(s) have been created [...]
>
> A compiled package cannot be published for end users on *creation*; the
> official source release has to be approved and published first.
> Furthermore,
> publication through downstream distribution is not just for compiled
> packages.
> It could be the official source release package.  Or it could be a
> reorganized
> source package whose file structure has been modified to meet the
> requirements
> of a given distribution channel.
>

I'm not sure where the issue is here.  Since I'm saying "have been created"
that implies a past tense.  I'm also not sure what build tools you may be
thinking of.  Most of the ones I'm thinking of can create both the binary
and source distribution artifacts at the same time (via a single command).


>
> Or it could be just about anything.  There are an unbounded number of
> downstream distribution channels -- addressing them all is madness.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

Mime
View raw message