On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Thilo Goetz <twgo...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 21/08/12 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 21.08.2012 12:52, sebb wrote: >>> I think the NOTICE problems are serious enough to warrant a respin. >> >> This is an unreasonable request. The IPMC voted on the 3.4.0 release. >> The notice file has not changed between 3.4.0 and 3.4.1. How then do you >> justify this new requirement? > > Let me offer some advice from somebody who has been where you > are now. Please keep in mind that the ASF is a large, volunteer > organization. The backs and forths you are seeing here are > normal and probably can't be avoided in flat organization like > this. This can be strange and/or frustrating to people who are > either paid to do their Apache work, or who come from smaller > organizations where it was easier to come to a decision. Try > to keep a positive attitude, go with the flow, and become a part > of the wider Apache community (not just your project). Help > improve things where you see they are lacking. This community > aspect is very important at Apache. > > As to the issue at hand, this is not a new requirement. The > issue just wasn't spotted last time. Yes, that's annoying, but > it can't be helped. The NOTICE and the LICENSE files are the > most important files in your distribution, and you should make > every effort to get them right. Sebb raises valid concerns that > need to be addressed. >
A suggested exercise at ApacheCon. Get a group of 20 Members, break them into groups of 5. Give each group an identical list of 3rd party dependencies and ask them to create a NOTICE file that expresses them. Give them 30 minutes. Compare the results. I'd bet any amount that all four NOTICE files will differ in substantive ways, and that there would be disagreement, both within the groups, and across the groups, on which was "correct". -Rob > Just trying to help here, so no flak my way please :-) > > BTW, I think AOO is doing an amazing job. I was not optimistic > when the project came to Apache, and I'm amazed you are where > you are now. Keep up the good work. > > --Thilo > > >> >> It is not fair to the podling if the IPMC invents new requirements and >> reverses its own decisions for no apparent reason. This NOTICE issue >> certainly shouldn't be ground for vetoing a release. >> >> By the way, the same holds for binaries being included in the releases. >> The 3.4.0 release, with binaries, was approved. If the podling did not >> change its release procedures and policies and artefacts in the >> meantime, it's not reasonable to hold up what amounts to a security >> release solely based on the IPMC having screwed up the previous release >> vote. >> >> It is fair to require changes for the next release. It's not fair to use >> different criteria for two successive, essentially identical releases. >> (N.B.: I use the term "essentially identical" in the sense that, whilst >> some of the sources have changed, the overall structure of the release >> artefacts has not.) >> >> -- Brane >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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
