On 20 August 2010 11:14, Tim Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> It's perhaps legally OK, but I still consider such "personal releases" >>> to be confusing and questionable at best. >> >> I certainly agree with you, Jukka, that such "personal releases" may >> be confusing. OTOH, without such releases people are clearly driven >> out of the labs. > > I don't see how it's that different than what happens with commercial > entities doing "releases" of our stuff. Cloudera, Lucid, etc. grab > the trunk and release - no one's confused by it. Jochen set's up a > simple website declaring "Jochen's JaxMe" and provides a download for > it. How's that confusing? >
For a non-Maven release, I agree. However, if Jochen wants to upload to Maven, then IMO it's vital that the release does _not_ use an ASF groupId. Otherwise the artifacts may look like an official ASF release. >>> We can always change the Labs bylaws if we think it's OK to make >>> releases of lab codebases. Otherwise I'd rather not start encouraging >>> such workarounds. >> >> No problem with formalizing that approach (or having a formal no from >> the board). >> >> The current question is, though, whether we *want* such a change. > > I'd rather *not* pursue an *Apache* Release of labs software - it goes > against most everything we stand for (e.g. community over code and > all...) +1 > --tim > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
