"one release constraint" as in we can only have one release with the LGPL dependency. No other release until that dependency is resolved.
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Mike Jumper <mike.jum...@guac-dev.org> wrote: > On May 19, 2016 10:30 AM, "Gino Bustelo" <g...@bustelos.com> wrote: > > > > I write this to start a discussion about the "One release constraint" > > placed on Toree and what I feel is an unreasonable constraint on a > project > > that is undergoing incubation. A brief background first... > > > > In Toree we have an LGPL dependency that is not a simple rip an replace. > > The library is JeroMQ and it is a JVM binding to 0MQ. This is THE > protocol > > layer used in Jupyter between clients and kernels (Toree serves as a > > Jupyter kernel). Over the past months, we've worked with the JeroMQ > > community to help move along a license change to MPL v2 ( > > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/327). The progress showed huge > > promised at the start and we are down to 3 committers out of 31 who have > > not responded. The JeroMQ community is moving towards code remediation. > > > > In my opinion, this effort shows great inter-OS community cooperation and > > something that should be valued by Apache. Why rewrite and maintain code > > that already exist? Why not allow the process to take place? Isn't that > > what the incubation period is for? Allow projects to resolve concerns > > before they graduate? > > > > So my question is, why one release? This has been our biggest impediment > in > > putting an official incubation release out. We are ready. We have all the > > disclaimer in place alerting the user that Toree contains LGPL code. The > > biggest concern is releasing and discovering a defect that we would not > be > > able to fix due to the "One release constraint". > > > > Again... I just wish to start the discussion and find a resolution that > > will allow Toree to properly grow and move forward with its incubation. > > > > Thanks, > > Gino > > Hi Gino, > > What "one release constraint" are you referring to? > > Thanks, > > - Mike >
