> > What's more: a convenience binary shouldn't contain the compilation of > anything not in the code release. It sounds like what you're publishing > there isn't actually Apache Weex, but "based on Apache Weex".
Well, what happens here is that there are two libraries in the git repo of incubator-weex, namely weex_sdk and weex playground. Apache Weex release only contains weex_sdk, and we publish weex_sdk as a convenience binary after the Apache Release as well. Then we used to publish weex playground to ios App Store in the name of Taobao(China) as we need an apple developer/enterprise account to do so. As INFRA[1] owned an Apple developer account, I think we could separate weex_sdk and weex playground into two repos and publish Weex playground in the name of ASF. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-18494 Best Regards, YorkShen 申远 Myrle Krantz <[email protected]> 于2019年5月29日周三 下午7:36写道： > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 12:20 PM 申远 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Community > > > > Weex 0.24.0 is released now, one can download source or convenience > binary > > through the link in our website [1]. > > > > And there is a remaining issue for the release. One may notice that there > > exists a showcase app called Weex Playground[2], which is compiled > > from incubator-weex, but it is not a part os Apache Release as the > release > > script deleted the files of Playground when publishing release candidate. > > As one need a enterprise certificates to publish an iOS App, we used to > > borrow the certificates from Taobao(China), LTD. > > > > Based on the fact above, I have following concerns: > > > > 1. I'd like to know whether it is ok to exclude some file during > apache > > release, like the code for Weex playground > > > > It is allowed to remove files from your final release. But only the files > in the release are covered by the ASF legal shield. It is only those files > which the Weex PMC officially makes any claims about. This is similar to > all the files you add to the repo before the next release. > > > > 2. I am not sure whether it is suitable that I continue borrow the > > enterprise certificates from Taobao(China), LTD and publish the iOS > > App. If > > it is not acceptable, is there any iOS enterprise certificates under > > ASF? > > > > I do not know of iOS enterprise certificates under the ASF. In general, > the convenience binary is currently not considered to be an act of the > foundation. I agree with Jan that you should ask INFRA, but I believe the > answer will be "no." > > What's more: a convenience binary shouldn't contain the compilation of > anything not in the code release. It sounds like what you're publishing > there isn't actually Apache Weex, but "based on Apache Weex". > > Best Regards, > Myrle >
