Hi,
As mentioned in the board report (under actions) and requested by Roman I’ve
raised this issue over on legal-discuss.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional
Hi,
> Boring imo. You have to try hard to screw up Cat B (though I’ve seen it
> done).
Really? Category B source code is generally not allowed in sources releases.
It's actually Category X. Category B as image and the like is allowed.
> I mean clearly against the terms and intention. i.e. I’m
Speaking on behalf of myself only, though note I am PMC chair of NetBeans,
which went through a protracted (nice way of saying ‘complex’) incubation
because of its size (‘very large’) and history (20+ years) — the key to any
new culture is to adopt its traditions and to fight them as little as
Hi -
Here are some thoughts I have to improving Incubation. These are not really
new, but I think we should discuss where and how best to apply these.
(1) Champions need to very clear that the ASF expects Community decisions not
BDFLs. Burnout is one factor to highlight why community is
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 02:53 Justin Mclean
wrote:
> HI,
>
> > I think that serious = release blocker;
>
> That would also be my meaning. People / podlings have requested that
> release blockers be allowed in podling releases.
>
> > I'd love to hear some examples. I suspect they are all legal.
>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:15 Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 02:47 Alex Harui wrote:
>
> > Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations
> > showstoppers? I suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt
> > release policy violations to a future release,
>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 12:09 PM Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> ...IOW, base those exceptions on a strictly managed list of acceptable
> issues...
And add the URL of that list to the DISCLAIMER, so users know what to expect.
-Bertrand
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:53 AM Justin Mclean wrote:
> > I think that serious = release blocker;
>...People / podlings have requested that release blockers be allowed in
>podling releases...
Ok, "release blocker" says much more to me than "serious issues" to
which I objected as being too
HI,
> I think that serious = release blocker;
That would also be my meaning. People / podlings have requested that release
blockers be allowed in podling releases.
> I'd love to hear some examples. I suspect they are all legal.
Sure some recent examples (without mentioning any pooling name,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 02:47 Alex Harui wrote:
> Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations
> showstoppers? I suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt
> release policy violations to a future release,
What are you talking about?
Nobody has suggested any
Maybe the next question is: Are all release policy violations showstoppers? I
suspect the answer is no. And thus, if any TLP can punt release policy
violations to a future release, then so can podlings, and the IPMC can let more
things go without really needing another decision from the
On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 4:11 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I agree with other respondents that 'serious' seems bad here. To me the
> > serious ones are the only ones they can't release with.
>
> So we just continue as is then? You have any suggests to what we change?
>
I don't think we're
12 matches
Mail list logo
