Agreed that #2 is best. (and I'll also note I was a bit slack with some commentary; releases need to be signed, so a path/revision or git-tag is not necessarily a true release; just trying to get across that you need a *specific* set of source for a dependency)
Seems that Andreas is going to explore some options at dev@pdfbox. Cheers, -g On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the key bit here is that releases of Apache projects must have an > associated source release and have been voted on by the PMC making the > release. > > If the project you depend on is an independent project, you need to > remember that their -SNAPSHOT build is *not* a release. Therefore you need > it to become a release to include it. > > You therefore have three choices: > > 1. Fork the code into your project and do a big-bang release... a rude > option but once it's in your project your PMC can vote to release it. > > 2. Join the dependent project and help them get to a release > > 3. Find somebody outside the ASF (or at a minimum not wearing an ASF hat) > and get them to fork the code you want and release that. Then you can > depend on the non-ASF fork of the ASF project... again a rude option, but > perhaps less so than #1 > > I vote you go for #2. It plays best with community which is what we are > here to foster > > > On 25 July 2014 15:26, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [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 >> > >
