Hello I think a "GitHub organisation" seems like a good idea. Staying in Apache would obviously be great but the release process seems to keep hitting barriers. I would have liked the minimal amount of projects to stay in Apache but who could do that. I almost got a release of mobile out and knew what to do but in the end couldn't find time plus I wasn't sure if releasing code without having a clear purpose or community was a good idea. Maybe getting core repos to graduation. Maybe mobile. Move the others to github. That could be an idea.
Cheers Ian Ps nice to hear from you gale. Hope things are going well for you. On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, 10:12 Stian Soiland-Reyes, <st...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 05:41:34 -0700, Gale Naylor < > ga...@noventussolutions.com> wrote: > > Stian, is an "incubator release ... to verify that the Intellectual > > Property is clean" the same thing as the "token release" that lets > Taverna > > graduate? > > That was not my intention, the release would be all proper, just that > its main purpose would be to clear IP rather than provide it to the > user. > > I think one challenge for us is the many git repositories for different > modules and we have released them separately, e.g. to correspond with > git tags. > > As some of the modules were not in a mature enough state code-wise or > build-wise they have not been released yet. We could do a incubator > release of these which would primarily be to ensure their code base has > been through the incubator and cleared their IP. Then their code can > join us in graduation. > > Some repos like Taverna Language we have already released, so they are > IP clear and have mature code/build systems. If we were to drop the > other repositories, with these it is almost trivial to do a release, > which we could do as a "token release" to show the IPMC is still working > and able to vote on releases. > > > The Taverna Mobile is dfferent - it is mature in a sense both in > code and build, and have clean IP as fresh project, but it has a > different build system without assisted release. Here I think just > manual work (or script) is needed - but it is a bit tedious. > > So in a sense we have many options, but I would say they all require > making and voting on releases. > > > >
