Hi. “nightly builds” is better than nothing, but that is something a lab can do already.
If I were to start a new project as lab (compared to doing it directly in GitHub), this would be a severe limitation. I do agree that official releases should not be allowed, but how about calling the kid “labs limited release”, with a severe disclaimer in the release notes. I do not understand your idea of incubator, a lab is not part of incubator (with mentors etc), so how should it be able to do a incubator release ? If you mean a lab should wait until it has left labs and entered incubator, then it is business as we already have it, and in my opinion DOA. Labs is directly competing with “native” GitHub, where a project can make a release when they decide to do it. In order to grow a community, making a release is important, since it marks a milestone, something a “nightly build” does not. rgds jan i. > On 22 Sep 2017, at 11:48, Danny Angus <da...@apache.org> wrote: > > One of the biggest sticking points on the use of labs is the limitation > imposed by the board on our ability to make "releases". > It is my opinion that a compromise is possible, and I would propose that > labs be allowed to offer "nightly builds" but that any actual release > should be done via the incubator. > > I would like to canvas other opinions here, and see if we can reach > consensus on a more detailed proposal which meets the needs of the labs and > adequately addressed the concerns of the Board wrt oversight and liability. > > WDYT? > > Danny --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
