On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@apache.org> wrote: > On 05/28/12 15:00, Rob Weir wrote: >> >> >> ... >> >> >> Yes the situation was specifically postponed as a graduation >> issue, I am not going through that discussion again. >> >> I made a concrete proposal with two alternatives: >> >> - They are moved to a friendly ftp/http site. >> - I step down from the PPMC to avoid the community >> the pain of a -1 vote. >> >> Since this is a policy question, I assume a third option would be to >> clarify the policy? That might make sense as the first step in any >> case. > > > We already went through that and it's pretty clear to me. Those
You could be in error. I hope you acknowledge that as a possibility. I could be in error s well. So what either one of us believes is not really the point, is it? Thus the suggestion to clarify the policy. > Category-B tarballs are there in an attempt to work around the > fact that we are only supposed to be using binaries. > The restriction concerning category-b binaries is a restriction on releases. > No other Apache project is carrying sources and patches to > MPL'd tarballs in the repositories and, other than the > configure option, we are giving them basically the same > treatment as Category-A. > We're not including category-b source in releases. If we learned anything in the last year I'd hope we learned that this was an important distinction. > I won't spend any more energy on the issue but feel free to > do all the consultations you want, and don't take the second > alternative as a threat. > How should I take it then? > Pedro.
