Just a bit of background here for anyone not following the discussion on @general[1]
This was prompted by the issue with the failing FlexJS installer. The general consensus at Apache is that releases are for source code only. “convenience packages may be provided as well, but they are not official releases. However, when these convenience packages are distributed by Apache, the waters become muddled. Since it becomes unclear whether the convenience packages are under the umbrella of the Apache release, it’s not clear whether changes to them require votes and what official process needs to be followed. The solution that was proposed on @general was to make a clear distinction between the official release of the source and any convenience packages. To make the distinction clear, the idea was that it would not be hosted by Apache at all and we’d be clear that any installers (that would make everyone’s life easier) is not an official Apache release. It seems to me that Github is the logical place to host this effort. The advantages I see with this is that the release process should become simpler. As soon as the Source passes muster, we could make the release official, and installers would not be official releases at all. We could fix/modify installers and the like as much as needed without worrying about legal implications. It would also give us a place to host any non-Apache compatible “extras” (such as flexmojo). [1]http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201410.mbox/%3cd06ad5ec.1bd2c%25aha...@adobe.com%3E On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure. Let’s discuss away! :-) (Nothing has changed yet.) > > The repo *is* public, and my intention was that we’d give all Flex committers > write access. > > On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Moving to flex dev list from general. >> >>> I just created “flex-extras” and we’ll put in some appropriate text both on >>> the Github side and Apache Flex side. Hopefully this will prove to be a >>> smooth resolution. >> >> >> I know you mean well but this really needs to be discussed on the dev >> list/with the PMC before making any changes. >> >> If we were to move to this model it also would be best if the repo was >> public. >> >> Thanks, >> Justin >
