Greg Stein wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:48, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: > >> Quite frankly, all svncorp releases could, with reasonable documentation >> [read: mailing list archives, CLA's and code grant] be licensed as ASF >> releases under the AL 2.0, irrespective of their internal artifact >> copyright statements. > > I doubt it. Those old releases are signed tarballs. We can't "reach > in" and alter the LICENSE file without re-signing the whole tarball, > and I think that would be a very bad idea.
We don't. I didn't say re-licensed; I said additionally licensed. It's as simple as putting the tarballs into a directory which says "XYZ are further licensed under the Apache License 2.0". Nothing needs to be altered to give users a license. >> A proviso that 1.7.0 won't be approved without running it through RAT, >> either pre or post graduation seems sufficient. The process is better >> documented than 95% of ASF project release processes, so there's no issue. > > RAT can be run right now, and the podling can work against its > results. No issue there. The *release* of "something" is my pain > point. +1; although we both know that extra artifacts 'appear' magically during most assembly processes, and that has bit us before. > And yes, the PMC that will manage the svn project can/should have a > responsibility to use RAT. But if you "make that rule", then you > better impose it upon every PMC here at the ASF. That's effectively > what you're saying :-) No, I'm saying give SVN a pass on demonstrating the [already demonstrated] ability to have an effective release process; *contingent* upon running RAT on the first release artifact created after graduation. That's what I am saying. >> But ranting against your perception of Incubator's failure to EDUCATE and >> TEACH podlings how the ASF environment works is really quite disappointing, >> coming from you. > > Look at the context. Being asked to throw together some bits for a > "release". Oh, just any bits will do. But wait, since they aren't > quite proper, you don't really have to announce it to users. ... come > on, that is not education. That isn't teaching anybody anything. We don't disagree. So stick around long enough to make a real release that the Incubator PMC can validate, or come to a reasonable exception that the Incubator can accept. But don't go flying off into rants about process that the board has *charged* the Incubator with defining and enforcing :) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
