On Jan 1, 2013 10:42 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > Ok, here is my logic: > > -From [1], a release is "anything that is published beyond the group that > owns it.". Putting the config.xml on the site to be consumed by one of our > binaries makes it part of a release and requires a vote before it happens.
I still don't agree with this logic. The config xml is placed on our website which is completely under our control. Which means that we don't really 'release' it. We don't 'release' the installer badge, but it consumes the same exact config xml. Are you saying that we need to release the source for the badge as well? > -Also from [1], " All releases are in the form of the source materials > needed to make changes to the software being released.". The config file > gets changed with each release and therefore IMO it is considered source > materials even though it is not source code. Not necessarily. We can ship Installer 3.0 with only UI improvements. No need to update the config xml in that case. > -From [2], "The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. > The main role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all > legal issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and > every release is the product of the community as a whole. That is key to our > litigation protection mechanisms." and later "However those on the PMC are > kept to a higher standard. As the PMC, and the chair in particular, are eyes > and ears of the ASF Board, it is you that we rely on and need to trust to > provide legal oversight. The board has the faculty to terminate a PMC at > any time by resolution." As much as we want to get this release out the > door, the fact is it is more important to make sure we are following policy. > > It is unfortunate that various logistical issues have prevented us from > getting our final dist folder. But here we are and we have to work with > Apache policy. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release#what > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc > > > On 1/1/13 1:44 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > >>> Would you consider the disclaimer page to be part of the source? > >> The DISCLAIMER file is in the source kit for incubating releases. > > I was referring to the disclaimer link in the application not the DISCLAIMER > > file. > I don't think it is an issue if we pull up existing web pages, but IMO it is > an issue to be publishing source materials on the site without a vote. > > > >> Source kits are (potentially filtered) dumps of what is in SVN. > > And that correct with the installer, there's a source kit which someone can > > take and compile the application. > > > >> I'm pretty sure Apache regulations would override any vote. > > What "regulation" exactly? Can you point to me page that state that you can't > > load XML files outside of it's SVN trunk? > > > >> This is potentially a legal issue > > What is the legal issue here? The installer will be voted on and distributed > > in the normal Apache Way (apache.org/dist). The XML file is also in SVN at > > svn.apage.org that only Apache committers can access and change. The installer > > will only download official Apache releases that have been voted on and placed > > in apache.org/dist. > > > > I guess worse case a committer could modify the file XML file in SVN to > > download another Apache binary kit but I think we would notice that and fix. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui >
