John D. Ament wrote:
So why am I harping on this problem? The incubator has a series of guides,
which are partially treated as policy and partially treated as advice.
Many of these guides remain with large notions of being draft only, not
finalized, I want to try to get these draft documents finalized so that
we're able to provide better guidance to podlings coming in.
I also think its important to keep our policies and guides as light as
possible. There shouldn't be a lot different in the incubator than a TLP
would go through, or else this makes the eventual transition to TLP harder
since many things previously done are now different.
+1 just to echo that this is a great exercise that you've taken up :)
One of the distinguishing marks within the incubator is the use of maven.
The incubator has a best practice that says if your build tool is maven, if
and when you publish a convenience binary, that convenience binary must
include either incubator or incubating in the version string [4]. Its not
clear why maven is singled out, probably because it was the first of its
kind, other tools didn't exist. One of the key notes I can find is that
the downstream redistribution channels are operated outside the ASF [5].
So while Maven is an apache project, maven central is not an ASF managed
resource but we are attempting to enforce our internal concerns to an
outside party.
Agreed that it's strange for Maven to be treated differently. Do we have
any other systems in which artifacts are automatically promoted to
non-ASF controlled entities as a part of an ASF release? Does anyone
have examples handy of where this is done manually? I haven't been
involved in any project that does either.
I can see value in denoting that projects are incubating at the ASF when
people aren't acquiring them from dist.a.o (or the project's website).
Craig's point is really good though too -- there *is* no policy which
defines what the GAV or java package needs to be for ASF projects.
Source releases (and convenience binaries) should already be shipped
with the DISCLAIMER, so is the -incubating really telling people
anything new?
My gut reaction is "no". Thus, -incubating is duplicative of the
information already captured and unnecessary.
This intentionally avoids asking the question about the value in
downstream users "knowing" what the incubator is, what podlings are, and
the difference between podlings and TLPs are. I think we first need to
decide if dropping the '-incubator' makes a release not obviously from a
podling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
