Just because some other podlings have released binary artifacts does not mean AOO can base their entire release strategy on binaries.
As Marvin has said: source releases are the primary release mechanism. Binaries are and should be a distant second. I would also state that continuing to argue is symptomatic of a failure to understand and integrate with the Foundation's thoughts on the matter. Or to at least politely discuss the situation on legal-discuss. Cheers, -g On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> Per the IPMC's "Guide to Successful Graduation" [1] this is the >>>> optional, but recommended, community vote for us to express our >>>> willingness/readiness to govern ourselves. If this vote passes then >>>> we continue by drafting a charter, submitting it for IPMC endorsement, >>>> and then to the ASF Board for final approval. Details can be found >>>> in the "Guide to Successful Graduation". >>>> >>>> Everyone in the community is encouraged to vote. Votes from PPMC >>>> members and Mentors are binding. This vote will run 72-hours. >>>> >>>> >>>> [ ] +1 Apache OpenOffice community is ready to graduate from the >>>> Apache Incubator. >>>> [ ] +0 Don't care. >>>> [ ] -1 Apache OpenOffice community is not ready to graduate from the >>>> Apache Incubator because... >>> >>> In my opinion, the issue of binary releases ought to be resolved before >>> graduation. >>> >>> If the podling believes that ASF-endorsed binaries are a hard requirement, >>> then it seems to me that the ASF is not yet ready for AOO and will not be >>> until suitable infrastructure and legal institutions to support binary >>> releases (sterile build machines, artifact signing, etc) have been created >>> and a policy has been endorsed by the Board. >>> >>> One possibility discussed in the past was to have downstream commercial >>> vendors release binaries a la Subversion's example, which would >>> obviate the need for all the effort and risk associated with providing >>> support >>> for ASF-endorsed binaries. For whatever reason, the AOO podling seems not >>> to >>> have gone this direction, though. >>> >> >> Let's look at the the TLP's that the IPMC has recommended, and the ASF >> Board has approved in recent months. Notice that a fair number of >> them releae source and binaries, as does the OpenOffice podling: >> > > Some further documentation of IPMC practice in this regard: > >> Apache Lucene.Net -- releases source and binaries >> > > IPMC voted to approve release, and vote post pointed to both source > and binary artifacts: > > http://markmail.org/message/mt3xthcqqng7ftnw > >> Apache DirectMemory -- releases source only >> >> Apache VCL -- releases source only >> >> Apache Hama -- releases source and binaries >> > > The people.a.o directory that was voted on by the IPMC is gone now. I > suspect it included binaries as well. Certainly now that the podling > has graduated their release candidates include binaries: > > http://people.apache.org/~edwardyoon/dist/0.5-RC4/ > >> Apache MRUnit -- releases source only >> >> Apache Giraph -- releases source only >> >> Apache ManifoldCF -- releases source and binaries >> > > Their most recent vote was withdrawn because they graduated before the > vote completed, but that IPMC vote post also pointed to both source > and binary artifacts: > > http://markmail.org/message/op7ofi2gudwfov3z > > So the recent practice of the IPMC has been to approve releases with > source and binaries, but also to graduate podlings that do so. > > Regards, > > -Rob > > >> So I'm not quite sure in what way the ASF "is not ready" for a TLP >> that releases binaries, or what additional legal or procedural work >> needs to be done to enable this. As far as I can tell ASF projects >> release binaries today. >> >> I agree, sterile buildbots and code signing are good things to have, >> and we are working with Infra on this today, and would continue to >> peruse these avenues as a TLP. >> >> In any case, shouldn't the question be whether the podling is ready >> for the ASF rather than whether the ASF is ready for the poding? ;-) >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> Marvin Humphrey >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
