Steffen, I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said. On the contrary, he very openly said that there's nothing illegal about releasing an RC; the way I read it, the potential problems are coming from endusers who might use a broken RC, fsck up their systems and go hunting (with a battery of lawyers) for someone to blame. In such a case the first stop would likely be the ASF, but the ASF would tell said pissed off user (and lawyers) that it's none of their concern if said enduser was neglegant enough to use an RC (not a release) in his environment. Said enduser (and lawyers) wouldn't like that answer, but there's nothing more they could do about it (since it's true), so they'd look for another scapegoat, and that would be the place they got the package: you. Said lawyers would likely point a finger at you for posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or warning lights (regardless of how many notices you did put up about it being a RC and not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's looking, or something). The point is that Bill is simply trying to get you out of said situation by avoiding it altogether.
You can ignore the help, and leave things as-is if you really want. Luckily (and probably), said situation won't happen, and everyone will be happy... or maybe not. And for the record, I'm a big fan of what you're doing in the win32 community, and I'd hate to see the site shut down for good... Issac Steffen wrote: > Thanks for the answer. > > I shall keep the site down, I am very disappointed and I feel threatened > by you for legal stuff. > > > Steffen > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <dev@httpd.apache.org> > Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 01:31 > Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems > > >> Steffen wrote: >>> This is a big booom for me and some fellow webmasters. And is >>> disappointing >>> me, special the style you are using. This style gives me the >>> impression that >>> ASF is not happy with Apache Lounge. Even I tried to promote Apache >>> in the >>> Windows world. >> >> I think what you've done for creating a user community around Apache >> on Win >> is great! Please don't misunderstand that. >> >> I've had to bring up this issue before, however, and it's very >> disappointing >> the message didn't get through. And just had oral surgery Thursday, >> so color >> me cranky. >> >>> I close the site now to further notice, till we sort out this issue. >>> I do >>> not want to promote an Apache when I get this kind of messages in >>> Public >>> form one of the key guys from ASF. >> >> Well, you should be aware there are no 'key guys' at the httpd >> project, except >> perhaps for Roy who happens to be the chairman (and he'll sign a note >> as the >> VP, httpd Project, if he's using that authority). It's a community of >> equals. >> >> There's no reason to shutter the site. Removing that item is more >> than enough >> to keep us happy, and to protect yourselves. >> >>> Just for testing this RC for our small community, we where thinking >>> that we >>> are helping. And it is stated in in the announcement and the readme says >>> that it is an Apache Lounge Distribution. Just a few are downloading it. >> >> Maybe you misunderstood. We want *you* to try your *build* with that RC! >> We don't want it distributed to end users, there's a big difference. >> >> Let us know what's wrong with the tag, before you would be >> distributing it >> for the community. I think we've done a reasonable job keeping up >> with bug >> fixes in the Win32 build, especially catching up with VC 2005, partly for >> all the feedback you and fellow VS 2005 users have provided! >> >>> 2.2.5 is at quite some more places to download, see for example: >>> http://isabelle.math.ist.utl.pt/~l55741/filesdir >> >> Well, it shouldn't be, but that's a matter to bring up with them >> individually. >> Understand that there is *no* 2.2.5. It doesn't exist until 3 project >> mbrs >> have voted +1, there are more +1's than -1's, and the RM declares it >> baked >> and moves it to www.apache.org/dist/httpd/. Ok? >> >>> I feel some emotion in your message, so better that from now on, we >>> should >>> not test any RC anymore ? >> >> Because I brought this up before, last year? These are for developers to >> verify, they aren't for user testing. Actually, we are looking at issues >> such as; >> >> * does it correspond to the tag? >> * is it correctly licensed? >> * is it correctly packaged? >> * are any additions that appear to have IP encumbrances? >> * does it build? >> * does it run? >> * does it pass the perl-framework regression tests? >> >> Since it isn't a release, you don't want to 'ship' it. >> >> You just want to let [EMAIL PROTECTED] know that you reviewed it, and are >> +/-1 >> for >> release, so it gets baked quickly with no issues. You don't have to >> do every >> review step I mention above, but just perform the tests you like on the >> platforms you like. >> >> Having users asking questions about unreleased code just causes grief >> for the >> users@ community. You and our other testers know better; but they >> won't. Once >> we have that vote, and it's our release, it's the ASF's mistake if >> something >> went wrong. >> >>> I got: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> The e-mail message could not be delivered because the user's >>> mailfolder is >>> full. >> >> Weird (?!?) thanks for letting me know that! >> >> Bill >>
