Sam Ruby wrote:
Tetsuya Kitahata wrote:
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 19:00:57 -0400 "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Judging from the move we made with james, CVS was easy. ezmlm a bit more
involved, but our users seemed to find us easily enough when the list
address changed from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Moving the web site was easy.
I'd like to oppose this. (Sorry)
I'd like us to all step back and take a look at the bigger picture.
Apparently, the root of this is a statement that something about the incubation process of Lenya raised hackles. I suggest that there may be multiple root causes for this.
Putting incubator as a part of the name is a form of disclaimer. One that is relatively expensive. I, too, would rather we explore cheaper alternatives before we decided to require this for every project.
It seems to me a disclaimer on the website, perhaps also in the root directory of the associated CVS trees, and a process which prevents any official "release" to be created by projects in incubation should be more than sufficient.
Sorry, but this has not worked.
What exactly has not worked? The disclaimers are new. No disclaimers are present in any CVS trees that I am aware of. The process proposal of not allowing releases from incubation is a novel one as far as I know.
If a project's destination is unknown, certainly it belongs in incubation. If it's destination is known, then I would think that there is a value of be able to observe the community "in situo" before exiting incubation.
I knew that many did not want renamings to occur, being touted as "expensive", so I still stand behind my last proposal (that has been trimmed here) which seems to me like a possible "compromise":
1 - the websites are placed in incubator.apache.org/projects/subproject 2 - these projects have as project logo the Incubator Logo 3 - They all have as a bottom line disclaimer a note that the roject is in incubation
Note that point 2 and 3 have not much to do with infrastructure, and point 1 is not under direct control of this list, as the project members would still have access to the incubator-site module, as part of the project.
2 and 3 are not in debate. We could achieve 1 with a symbolic link. Quite frankly, I'm more concerned about cvs and mailing lists than the web site. I would be willing to compromise on #1 if it were limited to the web site, however I will note that the ASF is not uniform in the mechanisms for producing web sites, so either multiple build tools will need to be accomodated, or the websites will have to be reworked when the codebase leaves incubation.
- Sam Ruby
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
