An Apache release while in incubation is a goal, perhaps even a blocker for graduation for ooo, but it shouldn't come at a cost of abandoning existing user needs for a lengthy period of time. The ASF is a pragmatic bunch, and realizes that this project is coming in with over a decade of prior history attached.
That history will now merge with ASF objectives, but it doesn't have to be immediately all-or-nothing. If the user community expects a forthcoming release in a timely fashion, and that cannot be accomplished as a full ASF release, then other avenues (like collaboration with OO regarding distribution) can and should be explored. (IMO). ----- Original Message ---- > From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 8:17:58 PM > Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure > > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh right, I said to myself knowingly, especially since any release under > > the >old infrastructure is essentially an LGPL release. And it would be an >opportunity for cooperation. > > > > Uh, wait, I then said to myself, how do we get that back under Apache >OpenOffice.org unless we manage to have it covered under the Oracle grant. >Hmm. > > > > And what do we do about the work that Armand Le Grand has been busily >continuing in the old infrastructure. He can recontribute that, of course, >but, uh ... > > > > Um, say again, this might work out how? > > > > > I don't see it. What are the hallmarks of an Apache release? > > 1) Apache 2.0 license > > 2) IP check list > > 3) Provenance assured by allowing repository access only to Committers > who have signed the ICLA > > 4) Work done transparently on the Apache lists. > > In fact, if you follow the general.incubator.a.o list you'll see the > Incubation PMC close to shutting down another Podling because they are > not doing their work at Apache, but are doing it elsewhere. > > Yes, getting to a first Apache release will require work. But we only > get there by doing the work. I don't see how releasing something > outside of Apache gets us any closer to an Apache release. > > -Rob > > > - Dennis > > > > PS: LibreOffice is currently at releases 3.3.3 (presumed stable) and 3.4.0 >(early adopter) with a 3.4.1 release candidate or two currently under test. I >think there are 3.5 and 4.0 mumbles too, but my eyes have glazed over and >I've >given up tracking the pace of builds there. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Schaefer [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 06:19 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure > > > > The other thing I probably should mention here is that this > > presents a golden opportunity to collaborate with LO should the > > "old" ooo infrastructure be considered unable to handle > > another ooo release. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Joe Schaefer <[email protected]> > >> To: [email protected] > >> Sent: Mon, July 4, 2011 9:11:09 AM > >> Subject: Re: Releasing OOo 3.4 on the old infrastructure > >> > >> Point of reference: the subversion project used non-ASF infrastructure > >> to conduct releases that would've been blocked by ASF policy on licensing > >> > >> had they used our mirror system. It is certainly possible to do the > >> same sort of thing with ooo for an interim solution, until the codebase > >> has been "cleaned up" to meet with ASF policy. > >> > >> > > [ ... ] > > > > >
