First of all: this vote is turning into a discussion that should happen in a separate thread....
+1 Drop the -incubator/-incubating expectation of maven projects It is not the code that is incubating. Whether a project of the ASF has a status (podling, tlp, attic, etc.) is irrelevant for the code. The code is donated/owned by the ASF, and tasks to ensure that the code released is in conformance of the standards of the ASF is delegated to the project. In the case of podlings, that responsibility is delegated to the IPMC. That a new project is going through the incubation phase is to ensure that the community works in accordance with the principles and regulations of the ASF (community over code, and such), and that the code is reworked to something that can be released as code of the ASF. For some open source is like a red flag. An addition like 'incubating' could be regarded as worse. Is that what the ASF wants? This kind of addition doesn't instil trust. It may influence potential adopters to stay away of the code until the project has successfully gone through incubation, It may influence potential contributors to not contribute until graduation. Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:46 PM, Daniel Dekany <ddek...@freemail.hu> wrote: > This vote doesn't allow voters to differentiate projects that start > their life in the Incubator from those coming to the Incubator after > already widely used. So the voter can only allow omitting > "-incubating" for all *kind* of incubating projects or for none of > them, hence I guess people tends to go for the safer option and more > common case. Admittedly, I'm interested in this because of another > project. But here's the same case again with Groovy. They haven't > grown in the Incubator, so they don't use the Apache brand in their > Maven coordinates (org.codehaus.groovy:groovy), so "-incubating" has > no context there. It has elsewhere, where there's "Apache" somewhere. > > > Monday, January 2, 2017, 10:02:53 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > The average is currently 2 years (give or take). Just to level set. > > > > I find it interesting that you mention Groovy in your response Mark. Did > > you know that Groovy interpreted the policy the way this vote is trying > to > > formalize the policy, and the artifacts published to maven central did > not > > include -incubating? > > > > http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org. > codehaus.groovy%22%20AND%20a%3A%22groovy%22 > > > > You'll notice that the 2.4.5 release was put forth to the incubator as > > 2.4.5-incubating, but published as 2.4.5 in maven central. You could say > > that what this vote is trying to do is help give clearance to podlings > that > > what Groovy did is correct. > > > > I'll also point out that Groovy didn't use Maven as a build tool, as a > > result they may have felt the policy didn't apply. They used gradle to > > publish to maven central. > > > > JB, I hope this response helps clarify for you as well. I want to make > > sure its clear, the purpose of this vote is to remove the -incubating > from > > convenience binaries published via maven, which for some reason is > singled > > out in the incubator policies. Other tools (Gradle, Ant, PyPi, > C/C++/Make) > > do not have this requirement, so the goal is to align Maven to all the > > other tools. > > > > It would still be expected that source distributions include -incubating > in > > the file name, since that's the official ASF release. > > > > John > > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 2:43 PM Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.invalid> > > wrote: > > > >> Groovy is a pretty big project and managed to get through incubation in > 8 > >> months: > >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/groovy.html > >> > >> But I agree that many projects take longer. Sometimes (as with BatchEE) > >> it's pure laziness to not yet have pushed it 'over the line' though :) > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > Am 02.01.2017 um 20:31 schrieb Jim Apple <jbap...@cloudera.com>: > >> > > >> >> If a project is well setup and mature then it should do incubation in > >> under 6 months, isn't? > >> > > >> > Are you sure? What does the CDF of incubation time look like? How many > >> > finish in 6 months? > >> > > >> > Beam just graduated in 10 months, and several people on this list > >> > seemed to call it a model of incubation: > >> > > >> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html > >> > > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > 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 > >> > >> > > -- > Thanks, > Daniel Dekany > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
