OK, based on everything I've read from this and a few of the other threads on this list, which I've just caught up to (I picked a bad weekend to attend a wedding that took me off email ;-), I am going to propose to the other XMLBeans folks that we do the following:
1. Create a build of a cvs snapshot and name the file: "incubated-xmlbeans-1.0.0.zip" (Ted's more serious suggestion than the one below, although that one made me smile more). 2. Edit the README.txt file to include a paragraph explaining that this build is a snapshot of an incubated project that is not yet officially endorsed by the ASF. 3. Add a note to the XMLBeans project web site making sure the incubation status is clear. Unless there are other suggestions, I'm going to assume this is a reasonable process to follow for an incubated project, which needs to make binaries available in order to help build a community. Cliff On Monday, September 22, 2003 11:40 AM, Ted Leung wrote: > Okay guys, I get the message. I'll ask XML beans to make a > "xmlbeans-is-not-part-of-the-ASF-1.0" release. > > On 9/22/2003 10:09 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > >> Jochen Wiedmann wrote: >> >> >>>> i think the point is that a podling is *not* part of the >>>> asf, and is therefore not entitled to distribute something >>>> with the asf's name on it. if the podling graduates, i don't >>>> see any bar to whatever packages were built during incubation >>>> being retitled as asf ones. >>>> >>>> >>> There are several things I do not understand here. First of all, >>> IMO, by accepting a project for incubation, it is part of the ASF. >>> >>> >> >> no, it is a *candidate to become* part of the asf. if it fails to >> exit the incubator, for whatever reason, it doesn't wander off into >> the sunset bearing the asf name with it. :-) >> >> >> >>> For whatever >>> other reason am I expected to sign a contribution agreement at the >>> beginning? From your point of view, it would be suffigient to sign >>> when the project exits incubation. >>> >>> >> >> because the code is being stored on asf infrastructure, among other >> things. >> >> >> >>> Next, assuming that my point is wrong, I would assume that >>> incubation is targetted to be a process of transition. Which means, >>> that a project is at some point perhaps not completely ready, but >>> with a sufficient progress. What good does it, to insist in the >>> "final 20 percent" or whatever you are missing? >>> >>> >> >> i'm having trouble parsing that, so i can't respond intelligently. >> can you rephrase? >> >> >> >>> Finally, you should not forget that incubated projects are >>> frequently mature and well maintained. What good does it, to forbid >>> them to publish, for example, a release that is "identical to the >>> last public release, except that the package names are being >>> updated". IMO this is the least what users can expect to guide them >>> in their own transition as soon as possible. >>> >>> >> >> as far as i'm concerned, they can publish whatever they want -- but >> they can't call it an asf release. i don't think any harm would be >> done if a ga release were made during incubation, labeled with the >> pre-incubation name (i.e., not mentioning the asf at all), but i'd >> have to consider it more to feel sure about that. >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
