Brane, We have been very actively working on this Release Candidate as a community, and I really wanted to put the blog forward. I think everyone benefits from the increased awareness about Apache Ignite project.
If you look at my blog ( http://gridgain.blogspot.com/2015/02/apache-ignite-v10-is-born.html), I don't think I violated the Apache policy as I never said that we have *released* Ignite 1.0. The very first paragraph of my blog states that this is a *Release Candidate*, which by definition is not an official Apache release. Apache release policy actually encourages that Release Candidates are made public if there is a plan to put it out for a vote, which is exactly what I did. Here is a snippet of the release policy documented here: http://httpd.apache.org/dev/release.html ---- *... Any committer may create a release candidate, provided that it is based on a releasable (non-vetoed) tag of our current subversion repository corresponding to the target version number. In order to facilitate communication, it is deemed nice to alert the community to your planned release schedule before creating the release candidate, since some other folks may be on the verge of committing an important change (or backing out an error). A release candidate should only be made when there is an intention to propose it for a vote on public release. There are no "private" releases at Apache.* ---- Thanks, D. On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18.02.2015 18:39, Henry Saputra wrote: > > I just saw blog post by gridgain: > > http://gridgain.blogspot.com/2015/02/apache-ignite-v10-is-born.html > > > > which I do not see any VOTE thread about this. Please all committers > > and PPMCs be comfortable how ASF does releases [1] > > > > While project is in ASF incubator any publications are ,ore strict > > than top level projects [2] so need to make sure to contact ASF press > > team about it. > > Would love to see announcement in ASF channel first before any vendor > website. > > There's another, more serious issue: the release hasn't been voted on > yet, and there's no guarantee that the current candidate artefacts will > be released. For example, no-one has even run RAT on the artefacts yet, > as far as I know (I'm working on that and hope to get it done tonight). > > You should never, ever blog about a non-existent Apache release as if it > was a done deal. This is seriously bad behaviour. The blog post even > calls the release 'available' and provides a download link, even though > there has not been a single +1 vote from PPMC yet, let alone IPMC. You > really should think twice before publishing. > > I'm going to have to ask you to remove that blog post and issue a > retraction. Which means, publicly say that you jumped the gun and the > thing isn't released yet. > > -- Brane (not happy at all) > >
