Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Yes, If the apache projects like say Axis2 and Geronimo set up their
> pom's in a certain fashion (using m2's scope=provided mechanism), end
> users will have to add incubator repos explicitly/consciously and
> won't get podling jars pulled in w/o their knowledge.
What's the burden imposed by this on the user? Does this mean that we could
eliminate the Incubator specific repository in favor of
<scope>provided</scope>? And is this an appropriate thing, since if Axis2
or Geronimo do that, doesn't it mean that the jar is no longer packaged with
them when they release? Is that an issue?
If the goals are to help protect users from a naive (as contrasted with an
informed) dependence on projects that haven't yet earned their ASF-status,
and to ensure that Incubator projects aren't just trying to cash in on the
ASF-brand without adopting our methods, where are the appropriate lines of
control?
If (for the sake of argument) WS decides to ship some Incubator JAR as part
of some WS release, and is supporting the release are they counting on the
Incubator JAR, or on you providing certain functionality? Of course, that
ought to weigh into your own decision to include the JAR in the first place.
Would this be the same as a company using Roller in production to sell a
service while Roller was still in the Incubator? A service purchaser is
expecting a blog, but perhaps not counting on how that functionality is
provided. Should it depend on whether the JAR's API is exposed, or simply
some functionality that you can maintain/replace? Again, reflecting back on
the goals.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
