> The question to ask is, will these artefacts be used by users or intended for their use? i.e. people who are not subscribed to the mailing list or not committers or PMC members? If so, then by ASF definition, that artefact is a release and needs to be voted on by the PPMC/IPMC.
No they aren't, as I said they are treated in the exact same way snapshots are currently treated. The **ONLY** difference is that they will be distributed to the Apache Nexus main repository and this is mainly due to technical reasons stated before (i.e. snapshots are semi-permanent since they need to be pruned). The primary motivation for the milestone artifacts are * Internal testing between the Pekko dependencies (i.e. publishing an artifact of Pekko core and using that artifact in in other Pekko modules to catch regressions before a release is marked) * For Pekko developers to have the ability to test their features which were merged into main in their production systems without having to manually build Pekko (and possibly all of Pekko's dependencies) themselves, which also as stated previously is quite difficult There is no intention of the milestones having any formal release announcement. > Have other incubating projects made non-ASF releases while in incubation? In a small number of cases, yes, mostly while they were getting their code base in order but not after they had made an ASF release, and there we very clearly labelled as non-ASF releases. Yes and this is not meant to be a formal ASF release, hence the previous suggestion of making this clear even in the DISCLAIMER file > Re official documentation/process that describes this distinction? Yes, that policy page sets that out. See, for instance [1] and [2] for why it needs to be this way. [1] Is talking about source packages, this discussion is about binary artifacts. In the last line they mention this > Nightly Builds that are not release candidates can be hosted at ci.apache.org projects area, just file an INFRA ticket. The links to ci.apache.org aren't even working and I doubt we can even use such a repository since we are dealing with JVM jar's specifically > Re official documentation/process that describes this distinction? Yes, that policy page sets that out. See, for instance [1] and [2] for why it needs to be this way. The Incubator distribution guideline also covers this [3]. You see that at [4] "Release candidates, nightlys and snapshots must not be advertised to the general public.” and you can read [5] for why. The release distribution policy also touches on this e.g. [6] As was clarified earlier, milestones are **NOT** releases, they are treated the exact same way as snapshots, nightlies or release candidates with the **ONLY** critical difference being that they are deployed in a repository that is not snapshots and they are published less frequently then a snapshot/nightly is. With this being said I am increasingly of the opinion that this is more of a technical INFRA question than an ASF policy question since the issues being discussed are technical in nature. There was never a suggestion of making an alternative formal type of ASF release. On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 10:51 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The question to ask is, will these artefacts be used by users or intended > for their use? i.e. people who are not subscribed to the mailing list or > not committers or PMC members? If so, then by ASF definition, that artefact > is a release and needs to be voted on by the PPMC/IPMC. > > Have other incubating projects made non-ASF releases while in incubation? > In a small number of cases, yes, mostly while they were getting their code > base in order but not after they had made an ASF release, and there we very > clearly labelled as non-ASF releases. > > Re official documentation/process that describes this distinction? Yes, > that policy page sets that out. See, for instance [1] and [2] for why it > needs to be this way. The Incubator distribution guideline also covers this > [3]. You see that at [4] "Release candidates, nightlys and snapshots must > not be advertised to the general public.” and you can read [5] for why. The > release distribution policy also touches on this e.g. [6] > > Kind Regards, > Justin > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#host-rc > 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#why > 3. > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Distribution+Guidelines > 4. https://incubator.apache.org/guides/distribution.html#release_platforms > 5. https://incubator.apache.org/guides/distribution.html#motivation > 6. https://infra.apache.org/release-distribution.html#maven > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@pekko.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@pekko.apache.org > > -- Matthew de Detrich *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen *m:* +491603708037 *w:* aiven.io *e:* matthew.dedetr...@aiven.io
