On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Luke Han luke...@gmail.com wrote:
There's one discussion in Kylin community about to add binary
package in release, people are really would like to have one:
Marvin's comprehensive response is very helpful.
However, the first described case is about a third-party distribution of
binaries, even though some or all of the third parties are participants on the
project. (I assume the executable was not produced by the project in a manner
that
On 18 August 2015 at 18:35, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org
wrote:
Marvin's comprehensive response is very helpful.
However, the first described case is about a third-party distribution of
binaries, even though some or all of the third parties are participants on
the project. (I
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Well, if Debian can publish their built Apache Maven as maven and
SteveNick can't publish their built Apache Maven as maven, then the
inescapable question is; On what non-arbitrary grounds is one acceptable
and the
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
However, if SteveNick are Apache project contributors publishing
unreleased
code and making an end run around Apache release policy, there's greater
cause
for concern.
On the other hand, if SteveNick are
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Kalle Korhonen
So what if a project (members) does not vote but unofficially
releases binary executable packages, perhaps along with source to some
other location than /dist/? Clearly, it's not an official release by Apache
policy but there the bits are in the
