I don't care about all the transitive deps maven is downloading and
caching in my local repository and I don't expect any maven user to
control the content of its local repository (mine is more than 2 Go
and i've no clue what's inside besides what i directly use). I'm
talking about maven as a buil
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Maven is just a tool to build something, it's not used to launch a
> process while downloading the binaries at the same time. At the
> end, people check what ends up in their distribution (be it a war
> or a tar.gz) and at this point, they know that there is an incubator
Why would someone care or even see them ? Are you regularly crawling
the maven repo for new artifacts ?
We don't have to be ashamed if a podling does not graduate, so I don't
think we have to try erasing the memory of this podling.
A non graduated podling could still be revived at a later time or
b
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Part of the Incubation process is to ensure that there is sufficient
>>community to maintain the code after incubation.
>
>
>>It seems a bad idea to allow artefacts into the main repository where
>>they can become dependenci
>Part of the Incubation process is to ensure that there is sufficient
>community to maintain the code after incubation.
>It seems a bad idea to allow artefacts into the main repository where
>they can become dependencies unless there is some chance that they
>will be maintained.
This is an argum
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:47 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/06/2008, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's just the thing though:
>>
>> At the end of the day, the vast majority of TLP end users could care less if
>> the TLP uses an incubator dependency or not, as long as
On 02/06/2008, Les Hazlewood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's just the thing though:
>
> At the end of the day, the vast majority of TLP end users could care less if
> the TLP uses an incubator dependency or not, as long as it is Apache 2.0
> compatible and easily available (i.e. in the centr
I disagree, the problem is not when using a transitive dependencies.
Maven is just a tool to build something, it's not used to launch a
process while downloading the binaries at the same time. At the end,
people check what ends up in their distribution (be it a war or a
tar.gz) and at this point,
That's just the thing though:
At the end of the day, the vast majority of TLP end users could care less if
the TLP uses an incubator dependency or not, as long as it is Apache 2.0
compatible and easily available (i.e. in the central repo). They trust the
TLP to do their due diligence to ensure th
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:52 AM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/06/2008, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > 1. Incubator releases go into Central
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I think having the "in
On 02/06/2008, Guillaume Nodet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> > 1. Incubator releases go into Central
>
>
> +1
>
> I think having the "incubator" or "incubating" word in the version
> name brings sufficient aware
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. Incubator releases go into Central
+1
I think having the "incubator" or "incubating" word in the version
name brings sufficient awareness to the users.
While ServiceMix was in incubation, we had sometime a hard t
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1. Incubator releases go into Central
>
> 2. Regular releases cannot use Incubator artifacts
>
>
>
> Since the whole point of the incubator releases is to get some people to
> use them and prove them out, I say
On May 30, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
For the most part Geronimo is consumed as a whole and this hasn't
been an issue. For those modules that are re-used there hasn't been
any issues. You need to be aware of that. If they checkout and
build the project locally the artifacts
On May 30, 2008, at 9:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
On May 30, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
IMO, things going into the central repository must have their entire
transitive hull available in the central repository. Therefore, we
must
draw one of two conclusions:
1. Incubat
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > "While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the
> > completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that
> > the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF."
> Let's say, the Incubator publishes a release 'foo-incubating-0.9-src.zip'
o
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> > "Every incubator release is also an Apache release"
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#rules
>
>> +1
>> every incubator release is an official apache release
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> > "Every incubator release is also an Apache release"
>> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#rules
>
>> +1
>> every incubator release is an official apache release
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > "Every incubator release is also an Apache release"
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#rules
> +1
> every incubator release is an official apache release
While technically accurate, the way you are both using the term conveys a
false me
On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Niall Pemberton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:04 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 30/05/2008, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> AIUI, formal ASF releases have some legal protection for the people
>> who make the release.
For the most part Geronimo is consumed as a whole and this hasn't been
an issue. For those modules that are re-used there hasn't been any
issues. You need to be aware of that. If they checkout and build the
project locally the artifacts copied into your local repo.
On May 30, 2008, at 10
>In this tree we placed the time dependent artifacts so someone that
>wanted to rebuild a release later on could by simply checking out the
>tag. When the build was done the repository project was built and the
>artifacts were then placed into the developers local repository. This
>allowed
On May 30, 2008, at 8:53 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
IMO, things going into the central repository must have their entire
transitive hull available in the central repository. Therefore, we
must
draw one of two conclusions:
1. Incubator releases go into Central
2. Regular releases
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:04 PM, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 30/05/2008, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I personally think we have conflicting rules in the way we handle
>> incubator releases.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the one hand, we require incubator releases to be in a separate
>>
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:53 AM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I personally think we have conflicting rules in the way we handle
> incubator releases.
>
>
>
> On the one hand, we require incubator releases to be in a separate
> repository... for whatever reason (they aren't part of Apa
On May 30, 2008, at 9:24 AM, sebb wrote:
On 30/05/2008, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
we've been arguing for years about ease of use verses informed
choice
for users of incubator artifacts. not sure that any consensus has
been
reached. the current policy just introduces frictio
On 30/05/2008, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >we've been arguing for years about ease of use verses informed choice
> >for users of incubator artifacts. not sure that any consensus has been
> >reached. the current policy just introduces friction (until someone
> >uploads the artif
>we've been arguing for years about ease of use verses informed choice
>for users of incubator artifacts. not sure that any consensus has been
>reached. the current policy just introduces friction (until someone
>uploads the artifact to the central repository).
So are we considering informed choi
On 30/05/2008, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally think we have conflicting rules in the way we handle
> incubator releases.
>
>
>
> On the one hand, we require incubator releases to be in a separate
> repository... for whatever reason (they aren't part of Apache, they
> are
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally think we have conflicting rules in the way we handle
> incubator releases.
>
>
>
> On the one hand, we require incubator releases to be in a separate
> repository... for whatever reason (they aren't part of Apac
30 matches
Mail list logo
