Hi, On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:06 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:59 AM Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 15, 2018, at 2:41 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > > > <bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see this as a two-level thing: > > > > > > a) The source release is an Act of the Foundation, it is what the > > > foundation produces > > > > > > b) For the binaries, the PMC states that it thinks they are good and > > > declares that the published digests and signatures are the correct > > > ones. The Foundation does not state anything about them - use at your > > > own risk but in practice that risk is very low if the PMC members > > > collectively recommend using them. > > > > > > That's not very different from what other open source projects do - we > > > need a) for our legal shield but b) is exactly like random open source > > > projects operate. > > > > > > You have to trust an open source project when you use their binaries, > > > and you can use digests and signatures to verify that those binaries > > > are the same that everyone else uses - I don't think anyone provides > > > more guarantees than that, except when you pay for someone to state > > > that those binaries are good. > > > > > > If people agree with this view we might need to explain this better, > > > "unofficial" does not mean much, this two-level view might be more > > > useful. > > > > Agree 100%. Thx for very clearly and accurately describing all this. > > +1 to this as well.
+1 for what Bertrand said. I have a quick question from a podling's perspective, should the decision for release convenient binaries be left to PPMC or IPMC? > > In fact, I love it so much that I'd like to have it published as part of our > official guide: > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages > > Any objections? +1 to add it to the documentation, so that we do not have to search for mail archives. Besides [1], I think it is also better to add it to [2]. I noticed it uses "binary distribution" rather than "binary release". So may be we should avoid using "binary release". For how to do the check for binary distribution, I also suggest to add it to [3]. For example: If the source release is accompanied with convenient binaries, we should check: - Does the LICENSE and NOTICE text exactly represent the contents of the distribution they reside in? - Does the jar files includes LICENSE/NOTICE/DISCLAIMER? Correct me if I am wrong. [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary [3] https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorReleaseChecklist > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > -- Best Regards！ Huxing --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
