The responses there seemed pretty clear to me that changing binary packages is okay without a vote because they are not official releases. Am I missing something?
On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > I did ask on general@incubator. I think folks who participated in the > discussion have shut down for the evening, but one of the last responses > was encouraging: > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So I am looking for reasons why we can/can’t >> update a binary package in less time than the whole >> vote + mirrors latency. > > I think you can. Just label it according to what it is. > You can even link from the web site. > > > I’ve asked for more information about what we have to label it. > > I’ve updated the LICENSE (more recent Apache Policy says no change to > NOTICE is required) and posted the bits on apacheflexbuilds and set the > installer config to point there. It is still hidden under dev builds, but > based on any other responses I get when I wake up tomorrow, we’ll either > leave it there, or promote it to the main list and potentially replace the > current FlexJS 0.0.2 entry. > > Cross your fingers, and good luck tomorrow Om! > > -Alex > > On 10/20/14, 3:20 PM, "Alex Harui" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/20/14, 3:11 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>>> IMO, all of your quotes refer to source releases. >>> >>> Please reread there are serval references that the binary must be made >>> from an source release and that only official voted on releases can live >>> in dist. Your modified binary also doesn't comply with Apache licensing >>> policy (it would require a change to the NOTICE file). >> I’m willing to change the LICENSE and NOTICE. Binary packages often have >> different ones than the ones that go in the source package. >> >>> >>>> There might be more flexibility. >>> >>> There might be but is it really that hard to follow official policy and >>> thus be under the legal protection it gives? Again this issue has been >>> know about for several weeks. >> It isn’t hard, but it won’t meet our timing needs. At 5 installs a day, >> it was just an unfortunate nuisance, but if we get a lot more, then we >> might care more. Seems like it is worth asking to see if we can do this >> within policy or can get an exception. The worst that happens is that >> someone with authority says no. >> >> -Alex >> >
