kaxil edited a comment on issue #10753: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10753#issuecomment-687676899
This whole time I am just debating for one thing (https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/10753#issuecomment-687651980): > If the sources are clearly mentioned where they come from and licensing is not the issue, I don't think we need source to be under our roof. I don't have anything against it but just wanted to know what ASF policy is for that. That we should not make it mandatory that all the sources needs to be under our umbrella if sources are clear enough and licensing is not the issue. My main concern is any code in our repo if we don't maintain (keep up to date) it will become technical debt. I wanted to just really get the process / rules clear and not specifically related to this exporter. I opened it for the first time now, looks like the code is there to create binary. If there is a lack of docs on how to rebuild it, let's help the OSS community, even if it is a small project. I definitely believe in the ASF motto of community before code, we could help the community (however tiny of that exporter) by letting them know that this is the issue and if they can address the rebuild instructions by just adding some clear docs on it. Regarding the technicalities of this exporter I will leave it upto you, Ash and Daniel as long as we are clear that this is not a requirement if the sources are clear enough and licenses are ok for future such items. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
