Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > users should have to make an explicit decision to make use of
> > Incubator projects. As many users as want to make that
> > decision are welcome to do so, but yes, we do not want widespread,
> > unintentional, adoption by users who may be stuck (and unhappy)
> > if the project dies. They should be aware of the risks and accept
> > them.
> Going to such lengths for 'widespread, unintentional adoption' seems a
> bit paranoid to me. Has there ever been a situation that necessitated
> this policy or that caused it to come to fruition? What exactly is
> being protected if the Incubator is all about projects learning The
> Apache Way?
Based on experiences prior to Incubation, and others learned early on and
nipped in the bud, we've been proactive to prevent problems. And there have
definitely been, happily resolved, instances were there could have been some
downstrean concern. I don't even include the projects that failed
Incubation, such as Kabuki.
> What I really don't understand is why having 'incubating' as part of
> the version and a package name of org.apache.incubator.<project> is
> not enough. Because the policy of a completely separate repository
> causes difficulty for users.
Didn't Ant Elder recently dispute that last claim? In any event, the goal
is simply getting the downstream user to sign off, even just once, that it
is OK to use the Incubator artifact. It isn't supposed to be painful
everytime they do a build.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
