+1 for this proposal. I think this will help the community better support more catalogs.
------ Best Regards Kang Zhou Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> 于2026年1月23日周五 14:52写道： > Hi everyone, > > I agree with Justin's points. While the intent of this proposal is great, > we must ensure it fully aligns with ASF governance. > > I will add some specific suggestions directly to the document. > > Regards, > JB > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 10:04 AM Justin Mclean <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This proposal generally makes sense, but I think there are a few areas > > where the framing could be tightened to better align with ASF release and > > governance expectations. > > > > The main point of concern is the distinction of released artifacts.. The > > proposal currently describes two binary packages and states that the > > “extended” package would not be released. From an ASF perspective, > anything > > produced by official release tooling, named like a release artifact, or > > referenced in release documentation risks being interpreted as an > release. > > It would be cleaner to treat catalogs-contrib as source-built extensions, > > rather than as an alternate binary distribution. > > > > Related to this, the phrase “relaxed requirements” may unintentionally > > imply lower quality or weaker accountability. What’s really being > proposed > > is a change in the scope of CI enforcement, not a reduction in standards. > > > > In short, the direction looks reasonable, but tightening the language > > around releases and CI policy, should help avoid confusion later, > > especially during release reviews. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin >
