On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Rob Weir <rabas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 5, 2012, at 4:44 AM, Oliver-Rainer Wittmann >> <orwittm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In the thread regarding our planned release for further languages - thread >>> subject "[RELEASE]: new languages for AOO 3.4.1" - a discussion took place >>> about what we want/should release and what kind of binary packages should >>> be made available and on which location. >>> Thus, I just want to share what I had learned in the discussions with >>> Apache members at the ApacheCon EU 2012 regarding releases made by an ASF >>> project. The discussion was more or less about all paragraphs in section >>> "What Is A Release?" found at [1]: >>> <my lesson learned> >>> A release - in nomenclature of ASF - is more or less the publication of the >>> open source material of an ASF project. >>> A binary packages which are produced on the basis of a certain release are >>> only for the convenience to the users. These binary packages do not belong >>> to the released material. >>> </my lesson learned> >> >> >> >> If you ask 5 Apache Members on this you will get 5 interpretations. I >> know. I've seen many conflicting interpretations on the Incubator >> general list. >> >> >>> >>> My conclusions for our AOO project releases are: >>> - An AOO release consists of the source package which we are creating based >>> on a certain revision of our source code repository. >>> - We are producing certain binary packages based on the same source code >>> repository revision which we had tested in advanced. >>> - We are providing the produced binary packages as convenience to our users >>> together this the publication of our release. >>> >> >> But from this you cannot conclude that a project may publish binaries >> with lesser degree of review and approval than we do for a release. > > What I took from this, as we have all seen and supposedly understand > the ASF release guidelines and what they mean, is the appropriate > place(s) to house our binaries, beta or not. Right now our production > releases of these are NOT in our ASF "dist" area, nor should they be I > guess.
OOPS! on this one...I missed the binaries in the "files" section- of "dist". So, yes they're in the "dist" but we don't actually distribute them from there! > > But, you are correct, we absolutely should NOT publish binaries > without undergoing scrutiny. The binaries are, for the most part, our > deliverable and the product that is used. > > >> Remember our Notice obligations stem from the use of 3rd party open >> source. This is more than just an ASF policy question. Ditto for >> proper license file. >> >> Also, Remember, our binaries are the source files for some consumers, >> those who repackage, e.g. WinPenPack. So proper review of the IP is >> essential. >> >> I'd recommend simply producing a RC and having a 72 hour vote. This >> won't kill anyone. I don't see what we're so scared of. We review blog >> posts for 72 hours before publishing. Is it really such a bad thing to >> have a review and approval of binaries before publishing? >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#releases >>> >>> >>> Best regards, Oliver. > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world > she wants, rather than to create it herself?” > > -- Anais Nin -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MzK “How wrong is it for a woman to expect the man to build the world she wants, rather than to create it herself?” -- Anais Nin
