[adding dev@community, as I believe this should go there...] On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 6:06 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com> wrote: >...
> Hi, > > there's an undergoing debate in the XML Graphics project about doing > a release that has a dependency on a snapshot version of another > (Apache, for that matter) project. > The fact that it is an Apache project is *key* for my commentary below. Don't take my words for external projects, please :-P > > I know there's a policy at Apache to not release a project that has > non-released dependencies. The problem is, I don't know how I know > that... I cannot seem to be able to find any official documentation that > explicitly states it. > That's why you can't find it... I don't recall any such "policy" (over the past 15+ years I've been around) ... it just isn't a good idea. That's all. > > The following link: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what is > apparently not convincing enough. I'm answered that this concerns our > own project but that it's fine to do an official release containing > a snapshot binary. > Well. You need to produce a full set of sources. No binaries. Those sources might be by-reference, but you definitely can't release a binary within your source distribution. Even if that other Apache project had a release you're happy with, there would be a source release available for it. > > Saying that every binary artefact has to be backed by source code and > that, in the case of a snapshot, we have to point to some Subversion > revision number, is apparently not convincing enough either. Despite the > obvious dependency nightmare that that would cause to users (and, in > particular, Maven users and Linux distributions). > Pause. This is not negotiable. You *must* have a source release. If you do that through a signed tarball, or through a git tag, or a Subversion revision number ... all of these identify a *specific* set of source code. That satisfies the need. You raise some concerns about nightmares... sure. Telling users "you must get r123 of /some/path, for $LIBRARY" is not exactly friendly. BUT: it satisfies all release requirements. It will specify the exact dependency. Good to go. > > Does anybody have any official reference to point at, that I may have > missed? More convincing arguments, legal reasons (should I forward to > legal-discuss@)? Much of this kind of stuff is "institutional knowledge" because having to write down "rules" and "procedures" just sucks. It is such a rare event, that it is best to leave it for the particular situation. There are no legal ramifications, if you're talking about a sibling Apache project. Now... you *should not* do any sort of release of a sibling. That will screw over that community. (version skew, unsupported bits, issue tracking, blah blah) I believe you have two options: fork their code into your project, and do some appropriate subpackage renaming to clarify it is distinct. Or, ideally, you join *their* community and help them cut a release, and then base your code on that. Cheers, -g
