On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:23, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 10, 2009, at 10:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >... >> And that is exactly what I'd like to do. But when the Incubator >> *imposes* requirements of release that does not meet the project's own >> quality guidelines, for an audience of zero, then I call that >> "ridiculous make-work". That is my rant. That the Incubator-at-large >> is imposing crap on the podling, rather than teaching the podling what >> it means to be part of the ASF. > > IIRC, Martijn has offered a proper legal review in the place of a "release". > This sounded pretty reasonable to me. I would agree to that. I'm surprised > you haven't worked with his proposal, to find what I think would be a good > compromise.
Yup. I've already stated that I have no problems with running RAT and working through those issues. Might have been hard to see in this long thread :-) > I agree with you that a release shouldn't be "make-work" -- it should be the > natural evolution of a community creating code. But I'm bit puzzled by your > extreme urgency for a fast incubator exit. Incubator overhead would seem to > be greatest for a release (which is not in your immediate plans, it seems). > Until then, overhead for board reports and voting in new committers/pmc > members would seem to be a minimal burden. Why *stay*? Incubator is not a home... it's a school. We're making a 1.6.7 release in the next 2-3 weeks, as I stated before. The Incubator can see how that works (I also gave pointers to 1.6.6). But the main release, under the Apache brand, is not until early next year sometime. I'd rather not wait until then. The reporting doesn't bother me. You can't possibly imagine how many reports to the Board I've read over the past 8+ years :-P Cheers, -g --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
