On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:54 PM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:40 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:24 PM Craig Russell <apache....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 2:33 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> ... > > > >>> I agree, but if you read the disclaimer is says nothing about releases, > >> perhaps that needs to change? > >> > >> Yes, I'd like to change the disclaimer to state that releases cannot be > >> considered completely reliable, should not be depended on for > production, > > > > > > I believe the above two phrases would be unfair to mature projects. In > > fact, to 95% of all the projects that arrive in the Incubator. The > projects > > *are* reliable and *are* used in production. > > Mature projects arrive here and go into incubation. I'd like to see > production cases use the existing mature project distributions and use the > incubator releases as test subjects. YMMV. > I took part in that exact situation: *Subversion 1.6* was produced "outside" the Foundation, and was the recommended version, while *Apache Subversion 1.7* was being incubated. > The only difference is they are learning how to become an Apache-style > > community. The software doesn't magically "degrade". > > Once the community makes changes to the "mature" software they have in > production, it not-magically does "degrade". > > Maybe you and I have different standards for production. Take a mature > project, add a few hundred lines of code, and it's no longer the mature > project you are using in production. > We do have different standards, and I would maintain it is not the IPMC's place to make such judgements. If myself and my fellow community members say certain changes retain its "production" status, then that is how it should be remain labeled. Your/IPMC standards do not apply. Cheers, -g
