> On Sep 13, 2020, at 2:55 PM, Joan Touzet wrote:
>> I think that any release of ASF software must have corresponding sources
>> that can be use to generate those from. Even if there are some binary
>> files, those too should be generated from some kind of sources or
>> "officially released"
On 2020-09-13 5:19 p.m., Jarek Potiuk wrote:
Can you please make an inline comment in the document? the Cwiki allows
inline comments, just select a paragraph and comment it there. This is the
easiest way to keep it focused in the document. I am not sure if
understand the Open-Office specific
Can you please make an inline comment in the document? the Cwiki allows
inline comments, just select a paragraph and comment it there. This is the
easiest way to keep it focused in the document. I am not sure if
understand the Open-Office specific things, i'd love to understand that
though (I
HI Jarek,
Can you comment on one specific thing? In Proposal 1 you still leave the
text "...MUST only add binary/bytecode files". This is not possible for
convenience packages in many situations - for instance OpenOffice or
other languages - where providing a full release of a product
Just for your information - after a discussion in the ComDev mailing list.
I created a proposal for Apache Software Foundation to introduce changes to
the "ASF release policies", to make it clear and straightforward to release
"convenience packages" in the form of "software packaging" (such as
