Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 10:41:05AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Well it can be run around right now too. I as a user of an incubating > >project can request that a jar be uploaded to ibiblio. The incubator and > >ibiblio policies are distinct. Unless the incubator can enforce policy > >on the Ibiblio/Maven project for them to police the artifacts, they can > >currently be redistributed on Ibiblio, it is just an extra pain for me > >as a user. And a naughty little user you would be. Stop running around and be nice now. Shoosh! Shoosh! > As I understand it, the ibiblio repository is under the de facto > control of the Maven PMC. http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-ibiblio-upload.html The instructions for getting stuff up there are on the apache maven site. They basically come down to a set of technical instructions for how to interface with the jira hosted at codehaus. The relevant jira projects are adminned by Jason van Zyl, Carlos Sanchez seems to be processing the vast majority of the requests, with Brett Porter chipping in every now and then. So, yes, that seems a fair assessment. However, ibiblio does sync automatically sync with various repositories *not* under the control (codehaus, jetty, opensymphony, os java) of the maven PMC, so control is shared with other open source groups. > So, if the policy was that only project > owners can upload the JARs, that would be respected. -- justin The written policy is only about the technical steps needed. In practice, it seems the repo administrators do do *some* kind of quality control. For example, if a user uploads new jars for - say- tomcat, he'll often get told to work with the tomcat developers to just fix the main "pom" files (which defines how jars are built, named, versioned, published, etc). I doubt that if the incubator PMC would ask the maven PMC to apply a patch to their technical policy which says "please do not request the upload of jars from the apache incubator" they would refuse it, but I suspect they may not want to be held responsible for enforcing it. The ibiblio repo just isn't audited right now or held subject to similar policies as the ASF /dist/ location. Eg they potentially would need to go after opensymphony for putting incubator jars in their repositories, which are synced to ibiblio. HenkP can share stories of exactly how much work all that really is. Of course, the opensymphony folks are not going to do something silly like that, so there's no *real* issue, just a potential one. If we do want that kind of auditing to happen, I suspect the dialogue should go onto [EMAIL PROTECTED] or user(s)@maven so the people that do the repo admin work are involved. I know I gave up on this kind of agreed-on quality control for the ASF releases a long time ago. Now I just try and make it policy that ibiblio is not used for the projects I work on. *ducks* LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On Thursday 31 August 2006 00:15, Dan Diephouse wrote: > I don't really think that this is going to help anything. The user is > always in control. The responsibility has never left their hands. Lets > step away from the incubator a sec and take GPL jars for instance - if > there is a transitive dependency on GPL jars, the user is completely > responsible for that. > Why would it be any different for an incubator JAR? The difference is that no Apache project has a transitive dependency on a GPL'd project. The Apache PMC is responsible to ensure that no GPL code is sneaking in via transitive dependencies, and an improved reporting facility in Maven's release plugin would *really* be good, both for licensing and other concerns. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Yes, general list and majority of binding votes AFAIK. please start another thread with a set of well defined choices to vote on. thanks, dims On 8/31/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 31 Aug 06, at 12:18 AM 31 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Jason, > > Justin used the word "common decency". No one can twist anyone's arm. > If either the ibiblio folks or Maven PMC folks don't honor the > request, well, it's upto them...Here we are setting policy for us the > incubator participants, incubator mentors and incubator pmc folks. If > people working on the incubation project break the policy, then that's > an issue for us. > It's not policy until we vote on it. So I guess it's time to vote. How is this done, no the general list? For 72 hours? A majority wins? > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 30 Aug 06, at 11:18 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Hmm, we are not setting any limits on anyone else, just >> ourselves. We >> > the incubator folks will not automatically sync *our* repo to the >> > central repo *automatically*. Everyone else can do what they want >> > within their rights. >> > >> >> That doesn't really jive with what Justin said in an earlier thread. >> In that we should tell people not to redistribute incubator artifacts >> and ask they comply out of courtesy. >> >> > -- dims >> > >> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> >> >> > Please see this email from Noel: >> >> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- >> >> > general&m=115440482328786&w=2 >> >> > >> >> >> >> Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user >> >> convenience? >> >> >> >> I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact >> >> with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator >> >> gives less clarity then adding a repository element. >> >> >> >> In a standard dependency report like: >> >> >> >> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html >> >> >> >> It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from >> the >> >> incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven >> >> tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these >> >> artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the >> >> incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it >> in the >> >> place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool >> they >> >> use to build. >> >> >> >> Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability >> to pull >> >> indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable >> >> lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new >> artifacts >> >> to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of >> >> repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is >> going to >> >> merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an >> artifact >> >> you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so >> >> people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see >> the >> >> repository entry once. >> >> >> >> If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say >> >> please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are >> >> going to make us: >> >> >> >> 1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in >> our >> >> license >> >> 2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party >> >> integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient >> access >> >> to certain repositories >> >> >> >> I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary. >> >> >> >> > -- dims >> >> > >> >> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Jason, >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? >> >> *Any* >> >> >> > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are >> >> you >> >> >> > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central >> repo they >> >> >> won't >> >> >> > find it and won't know how to use it? >> >> >> >> >> >> As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming >> >> from >> >> >> Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central >> >> >> repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact >> >> required are >> >> >> placed in the central repository. >> >> >> >> >> >> It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to >> raise >> >> >> awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done >> >> with the >> >> >> version. It could even be >> >> >> >> >> >> 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) >> >> >> >> >> >> As I think that would be preferable to users and that is >> >> abundantly >> >> >> clear I think. >> >> >> >> >> >> > The least anyone will need to >> >> >> > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this >> >> when the
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 31 Aug 06, at 12:18 AM 31 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Jason, Justin used the word "common decency". No one can twist anyone's arm. If either the ibiblio folks or Maven PMC folks don't honor the request, well, it's upto them...Here we are setting policy for us the incubator participants, incubator mentors and incubator pmc folks. If people working on the incubation project break the policy, then that's an issue for us. It's not policy until we vote on it. So I guess it's time to vote. How is this done, no the general list? For 72 hours? A majority wins? -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 11:18 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Hmm, we are not setting any limits on anyone else, just ourselves. We > the incubator folks will not automatically sync *our* repo to the > central repo *automatically*. Everyone else can do what they want > within their rights. > That doesn't really jive with what Justin said in an earlier thread. In that we should tell people not to redistribute incubator artifacts and ask they comply out of courtesy. > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Please see this email from Noel: >> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- >> > general&m=115440482328786&w=2 >> > >> >> Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user >> convenience? >> >> I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact >> with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator >> gives less clarity then adding a repository element. >> >> In a standard dependency report like: >> >> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html >> >> It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from the >> incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven >> tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these >> artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the >> incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it in the >> place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool they >> use to build. >> >> Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability to pull >> indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable >> lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new artifacts >> to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of >> repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is going to >> merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an artifact >> you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so >> people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see the >> repository entry once. >> >> If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say >> please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are >> going to make us: >> >> 1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in our >> license >> 2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party >> integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient access >> to certain repositories >> >> I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary. >> >> > -- dims >> > >> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> >> >> > Jason, >> >> > >> >> > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? >> *Any* >> >> > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are >> you >> >> > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they >> >> won't >> >> > find it and won't know how to use it? >> >> >> >> As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming >> from >> >> Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central >> >> repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact >> required are >> >> placed in the central repository. >> >> >> >> It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise >> >> awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done >> with the >> >> version. It could even be >> >> >> >> 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) >> >> >> >> As I think that would be preferable to users and that is >> abundantly >> >> clear I think. >> >> >> >> > The least anyone will need to >> >> > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this >> when they >> >> > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never >> >> look >> >> > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at >> >> ibiblio >> >> > repo and decide to use a project? >> >> >> >> The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not >> have >> >> to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need >> to be >> >> in the central repository as shown by the many threads when >> users go >> >> to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central re
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Jason, Justin used the word "common decency". No one can twist anyone's arm. If either the ibiblio folks or Maven PMC folks don't honor the request, well, it's upto them...Here we are setting policy for us the incubator participants, incubator mentors and incubator pmc folks. If people working on the incubation project break the policy, then that's an issue for us. -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 11:18 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Hmm, we are not setting any limits on anyone else, just ourselves. We > the incubator folks will not automatically sync *our* repo to the > central repo *automatically*. Everyone else can do what they want > within their rights. > That doesn't really jive with what Justin said in an earlier thread. In that we should tell people not to redistribute incubator artifacts and ask they comply out of courtesy. > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Please see this email from Noel: >> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- >> > general&m=115440482328786&w=2 >> > >> >> Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user >> convenience? >> >> I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact >> with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator >> gives less clarity then adding a repository element. >> >> In a standard dependency report like: >> >> http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html >> >> It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from the >> incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven >> tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these >> artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the >> incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it in the >> place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool they >> use to build. >> >> Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability to pull >> indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable >> lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new artifacts >> to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of >> repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is going to >> merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an artifact >> you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so >> people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see the >> repository entry once. >> >> If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say >> please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are >> going to make us: >> >> 1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in our >> license >> 2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party >> integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient access >> to certain repositories >> >> I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary. >> >> > -- dims >> > >> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> >> >> > Jason, >> >> > >> >> > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? >> *Any* >> >> > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are >> you >> >> > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they >> >> won't >> >> > find it and won't know how to use it? >> >> >> >> As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming >> from >> >> Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central >> >> repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact >> required are >> >> placed in the central repository. >> >> >> >> It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise >> >> awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done >> with the >> >> version. It could even be >> >> >> >> 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) >> >> >> >> As I think that would be preferable to users and that is >> abundantly >> >> clear I think. >> >> >> >> > The least anyone will need to >> >> > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this >> when they >> >> > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never >> >> look >> >> > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at >> >> ibiblio >> >> > repo and decide to use a project? >> >> >> >> The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not >> have >> >> to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need >> to be >> >> in the central repository as shown by the many threads when >> users go >> >> to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository. >> >> >> >> > If they do indeed look, isn't it >> >> > trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the >> >> > incubation repo? Where's the problem? >> >> >> >> A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to >
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 30 Aug 06, at 11:18 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Hmm, we are not setting any limits on anyone else, just ourselves. We the incubator folks will not automatically sync *our* repo to the central repo *automatically*. Everyone else can do what they want within their rights. That doesn't really jive with what Justin said in an earlier thread. In that we should tell people not to redistribute incubator artifacts and ask they comply out of courtesy. -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Please see this email from Noel: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- > general&m=115440482328786&w=2 > Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user convenience? I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator gives less clarity then adding a repository element. In a standard dependency report like: http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from the incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it in the place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool they use to build. Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability to pull indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new artifacts to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is going to merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an artifact you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see the repository entry once. If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are going to make us: 1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in our license 2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient access to certain repositories I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary. > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Jason, >> > >> > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? *Any* >> > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are you >> > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they >> won't >> > find it and won't know how to use it? >> >> As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming from >> Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central >> repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact required are >> placed in the central repository. >> >> It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise >> awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done with the >> version. It could even be >> >> 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) >> >> As I think that would be preferable to users and that is abundantly >> clear I think. >> >> > The least anyone will need to >> > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this when they >> > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never >> look >> > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at >> ibiblio >> > repo and decide to use a project? >> >> The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not have >> to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need to be >> in the central repository as shown by the many threads when users go >> to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository. >> >> > If they do indeed look, isn't it >> > trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the >> > incubation repo? Where's the problem? >> >> A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to find >> the artifact's groupId and artifactId. They don't go to project >> websites, they go to the authority which is the central repository. >> >> If the goal here is user awareness then I think using an version like >> (1) supports this end to a great extent while being more convenient >> for the average Maven user. >> >> >> > >> > -- dims >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to >> >> know on >> >> >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from re
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Hmm, we are not setting any limits on anyone else, just ourselves. We the incubator folks will not automatically sync *our* repo to the central repo *automatically*. Everyone else can do what they want within their rights. -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Please see this email from Noel: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- > general&m=115440482328786&w=2 > Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user convenience? I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator gives less clarity then adding a repository element. In a standard dependency report like: http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from the incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it in the place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool they use to build. Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability to pull indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new artifacts to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is going to merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an artifact you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see the repository entry once. If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are going to make us: 1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in our license 2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient access to certain repositories I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary. > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> > Jason, >> > >> > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? *Any* >> > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are you >> > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they >> won't >> > find it and won't know how to use it? >> >> As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming from >> Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central >> repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact required are >> placed in the central repository. >> >> It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise >> awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done with the >> version. It could even be >> >> 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) >> >> As I think that would be preferable to users and that is abundantly >> clear I think. >> >> > The least anyone will need to >> > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this when they >> > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never >> look >> > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at >> ibiblio >> > repo and decide to use a project? >> >> The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not have >> to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need to be >> in the central repository as shown by the many threads when users go >> to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository. >> >> > If they do indeed look, isn't it >> > trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the >> > incubation repo? Where's the problem? >> >> A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to find >> the artifact's groupId and artifactId. They don't go to project >> websites, they go to the authority which is the central repository. >> >> If the goal here is user awareness then I think using an version like >> (1) supports this end to a great extent while being more convenient >> for the average Maven user. >> >> >> > >> > -- dims >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to >> >> know on >> >> >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that >> >> some >> >> >> incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. >> >> > >> >> > Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those >> >> artifacts not >> >> > to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of >> >> courtesy. >> >> >> >> It just means that
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 30 Aug 06, at 10:16 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Please see this email from Noel: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- general&m=115440482328786&w=2 Why can't both aims be met? That of user protection and user convenience? I cannot see the how marking *each* and *every* incubator artifact with a version that clearly says it is from the Apache Incubator gives less clarity then adding a repository element. In a standard dependency report like: http://jackrabbit.apache.org/dependencies.html It would be very clear looking at the version that it came from the incubator. And if people download these artifacts with non-Maven tools like an Ant Task, Ivy or simply check in versions of these artifacts then they will clearly be seen as coming from the incubator. If we are going to make it clear then let's do it in the place where it will be seen by everyone regardless of the tool they use to build. Also the Maven 2.x IDE integration will soon have the ability to pull indices from repositories in order to provide drop down/searchable lists of available artifacts so it will be easy to grab new artifacts to put in your POMs. An IDE could easily provide a set of repositories to pull indices from at which point the user is going to merrily start pulling down dependencies. When you select an artifact you always select the version, like in the Eclipse integration, so people will see "apache-incubator" over and over. They will see the repository entry once. If I then had to go to the people doing IDE integration and say please don't include the apache incubator repository. So you are going to make us: 1) Deny people the right to distribute software as described in our license 2) Make the Maven developers go search out all third party integration efforts to prevent them from providing convenient access to certain repositories I think this is a little heavy handed, unfair and unnecessary. -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Jason, > > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? *Any* > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are you > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they won't > find it and won't know how to use it? As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming from Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact required are placed in the central repository. It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done with the version. It could even be 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) As I think that would be preferable to users and that is abundantly clear I think. > The least anyone will need to > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this when they > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never look > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at ibiblio > repo and decide to use a project? The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not have to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need to be in the central repository as shown by the many threads when users go to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository. > If they do indeed look, isn't it > trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the > incubation repo? Where's the problem? A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to find the artifact's groupId and artifactId. They don't go to project websites, they go to the authority which is the central repository. If the goal here is user awareness then I think using an version like (1) supports this end to a great extent while being more convenient for the average Maven user. > > -- dims > > > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> >> > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to >> know on >> >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that >> some >> >> incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. >> > >> > Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those >> artifacts not >> > to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of >> courtesy. >> >> It just means that we have to start watching for requests coming from >> users to put artifacts in the repository. Effectively you are asking >> us to deny the terms of redistribution stated in our license are you >> not? >> >> We could watch for requests going into Ibiblio, but we can't prevent >> someone else from putting in a repository that they might use. >> >> What is going to happen is that people are going to want to use these >> artifa
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Please see this email from Noel: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115440482328786&w=2 -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Jason, > > Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? *Any* > maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are you > stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they won't > find it and won't know how to use it? As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming from Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact required are placed in the central repository. It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done with the version. It could even be 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) As I think that would be preferable to users and that is abundantly clear I think. > The least anyone will need to > know is the artifact id and version id and they find this when they > browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never look > at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at ibiblio > repo and decide to use a project? The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not have to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need to be in the central repository as shown by the many threads when users go to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository. > If they do indeed look, isn't it > trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the > incubation repo? Where's the problem? A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to find the artifact's groupId and artifactId. They don't go to project websites, they go to the authority which is the central repository. If the goal here is user awareness then I think using an version like (1) supports this end to a great extent while being more convenient for the average Maven user. > > -- dims > > > > On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> >> > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to >> know on >> >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that >> some >> >> incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. >> > >> > Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those >> artifacts not >> > to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of >> courtesy. >> >> It just means that we have to start watching for requests coming from >> users to put artifacts in the repository. Effectively you are asking >> us to deny the terms of redistribution stated in our license are you >> not? >> >> We could watch for requests going into Ibiblio, but we can't prevent >> someone else from putting in a repository that they might use. >> >> What is going to happen is that people are going to want to use these >> artifacts and they will want to rsync Ibiblio, which many people do, >> and then attempt to rsync the incubator repository. We are just >> going to try and circumvent a path that we cannot fully block off. >> >> I don't see what is not clear with *every* incubator artifact being >> marked with a version that has "incubator" in it. Plus the reports >> that can be generated give a clear view to users what they are >> consuming. >> >> I read this: >> >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- >> general&m=115440663222532&w=2 >> >> and to be frank (4) is somewhat paradoxical to me. You want an >> incubator project to thrive, and grow while we are tacitly, yet >> actively, discouraging their use? I think we should let people use >> their common sense to protect themselves. >> >> What is being envisioned here as the worst case scenario of using an >> incubator artifact for a failed incubator project? The mail says >> protect the user, but from what? >> >> I'm not going to discourage the use of a project I'm mentoring and >> fully support. I'm going to get everyone on the planet I can to use >> it as fast and as widely as possible. >> >> > -- justin >> > >> > >> - >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> Jason van Zyl >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service > Developers) > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 30 Aug 06, at 7:53 PM 30 Aug 06, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Jason, Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? *Any* maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are you stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they won't find it and won't know how to use it? As a force of habit most Maven users, particularly those coming from Maven 1.x, assume all open source artifacts are in the central repository. And in most cases for Maven 2.x all artifact required are placed in the central repository. It would be an unnecessary inconvenience. If the goal is to raise awareness that it is from the incubator then it can be done with the version. It could even be 1.0-apache-incubator-foo (1) As I think that would be preferable to users and that is abundantly clear I think. The least anyone will need to know is the artifact id and version id and they find this when they browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never look at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at ibiblio repo and decide to use a project? The whole point of Maven is to make this easy for users and not have to look at a project's site. Maven users expect what they need to be in the central repository as shown by the many threads when users go to use Sun JARs and we don't have them in the central repository. If they do indeed look, isn't it trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the incubation repo? Where's the problem? A lot of times people actually go to the central repository to find the artifact's groupId and artifactId. They don't go to project websites, they go to the authority which is the central repository. If the goal here is user awareness then I think using an version like (1) supports this end to a great extent while being more convenient for the average Maven user. -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to know on >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that some >> incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. > > Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those artifacts not > to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of courtesy. It just means that we have to start watching for requests coming from users to put artifacts in the repository. Effectively you are asking us to deny the terms of redistribution stated in our license are you not? We could watch for requests going into Ibiblio, but we can't prevent someone else from putting in a repository that they might use. What is going to happen is that people are going to want to use these artifacts and they will want to rsync Ibiblio, which many people do, and then attempt to rsync the incubator repository. We are just going to try and circumvent a path that we cannot fully block off. I don't see what is not clear with *every* incubator artifact being marked with a version that has "incubator" in it. Plus the reports that can be generated give a clear view to users what they are consuming. I read this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator- general&m=115440663222532&w=2 and to be frank (4) is somewhat paradoxical to me. You want an incubator project to thrive, and grow while we are tacitly, yet actively, discouraging their use? I think we should let people use their common sense to protect themselves. What is being envisioned here as the worst case scenario of using an incubator artifact for a failed incubator project? The mail says protect the user, but from what? I'm not going to discourage the use of a project I'm mentoring and fully support. I'm going to get everyone on the planet I can to use it as fast and as widely as possible. > -- justin > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Jason, Is it rocket science to add a new repo location in pom.xml? *Any* maven newbie learns *very* quickly how to add a new repo. Are you stating that *IF* the artifacts are not in the central repo they won't find it and won't know how to use it? The least anyone will need to know is the artifact id and version id and they find this when they browse a project's pages, are you stating that a user will never look at anyone's web site or download area and will *ONLY* look at ibiblio repo and decide to use a project? If they do indeed look, isn't it trivial to add instructions on adding info on how to add the incubation repo? Where's the problem? -- dims On 8/30/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to know on >> what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that some >> incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. > > Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those artifacts not > to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of courtesy. It just means that we have to start watching for requests coming from users to put artifacts in the repository. Effectively you are asking us to deny the terms of redistribution stated in our license are you not? We could watch for requests going into Ibiblio, but we can't prevent someone else from putting in a repository that they might use. What is going to happen is that people are going to want to use these artifacts and they will want to rsync Ibiblio, which many people do, and then attempt to rsync the incubator repository. We are just going to try and circumvent a path that we cannot fully block off. I don't see what is not clear with *every* incubator artifact being marked with a version that has "incubator" in it. Plus the reports that can be generated give a clear view to users what they are consuming. I read this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115440663222532&w=2 and to be frank (4) is somewhat paradoxical to me. You want an incubator project to thrive, and grow while we are tacitly, yet actively, discouraging their use? I think we should let people use their common sense to protect themselves. What is being envisioned here as the worst case scenario of using an incubator artifact for a failed incubator project? The mail says protect the user, but from what? I'm not going to discourage the use of a project I'm mentoring and fully support. I'm going to get everyone on the planet I can to use it as fast and as widely as possible. > -- justin > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 30 Aug 06, at 1:48 PM 30 Aug 06, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to know on what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that some incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those artifacts not to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of courtesy. It just means that we have to start watching for requests coming from users to put artifacts in the repository. Effectively you are asking us to deny the terms of redistribution stated in our license are you not? We could watch for requests going into Ibiblio, but we can't prevent someone else from putting in a repository that they might use. What is going to happen is that people are going to want to use these artifacts and they will want to rsync Ibiblio, which many people do, and then attempt to rsync the incubator repository. We are just going to try and circumvent a path that we cannot fully block off. I don't see what is not clear with *every* incubator artifact being marked with a version that has "incubator" in it. Plus the reports that can be generated give a clear view to users what they are consuming. I read this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115440663222532&w=2 and to be frank (4) is somewhat paradoxical to me. You want an incubator project to thrive, and grow while we are tacitly, yet actively, discouraging their use? I think we should let people use their common sense to protect themselves. What is being envisioned here as the worst case scenario of using an incubator artifact for a failed incubator project? The mail says protect the user, but from what? I'm not going to discourage the use of a project I'm mentoring and fully support. I'm going to get everyone on the planet I can to use it as fast and as widely as possible. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to know on what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that some incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. Common decency? If we (as the project owners) ask those artifacts not to be posted, then they shouldn't be posted as a matter of courtesy. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well it can be run around right now too. I as a user of an incubating project can request that a jar be uploaded to ibiblio. The incubator and ibiblio policies are distinct. Unless the incubator can enforce policy on the Ibiblio/Maven project for them to police the artifacts, they can currently be redistributed on Ibiblio, it is just an extra pain for me as a user. As I understand it, the ibiblio repository is under the de facto control of the Maven PMC. So, if the policy was that only project owners can upload the JARs, that would be respected. -- justin I don't believe thats the current policy. Some projects don't care about maven, so users need to take things into their own hands. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Yes, and I feel that Jason is addressing the issues brought up previously. As Jason stated, and I reiterated in my message to Justin, the incubator policy doesn't really affect the ibiblio distribution policy, so I see those as in conflict right now. So I want to know on what grounds the incubator can prevent me from requesting that some incubating jars from being uploaded to ibiblio. - Dan Davanum Srinivas wrote: I guess, you need to read more emails on this list :) For example see [1] thanks, dims [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115440663222532&w=2 On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why? Davanum Srinivas wrote: > If it comes to a VOTE, i'd vote -1 on automatic syncing of incubator > artifacts to maven central repo. > > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jason van Zyl wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > It looks like people objected to creating another mailing list for >> > policy so I just used [policy] as Robert did in a previous message. >> > >> > Henri has setup Maven repositories for the incubator and there is a >> > document which is an attempt to describe the current setup here: >> > >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html >> > >> > I think that everyone agrees that a separate repository for incubating >> > projects is a good idea as >> > >> > 1) you can clearly see what incubator artifacts have been created >> > 2) we can perform analysis and create reports for incubator artifacts >> > easily (using Archiva, the maven repository manager) >> > 3) separating the administration duties of the incubator repository is >> > a good idea I think. This might involve a different instance of >> > Archiva and/or different people looking after the respective >> repositories >> > >> > I haven't looked at all the projects using Maven in the incubator but >> > cxf, the one I'm most involved with, looks like its settling on >> > versions like: >> > >> > 2.0-incubator-SNAPSHOT >> > >> > So the repository is clearly separated, and from a dependency element >> > in a Maven POM you can clearly see it's an incubator version. >> > >> > There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to >> > the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A >> > few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they >> > don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the >> > central repository because they are incubating. If each and every >> > incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above >> > then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso then >> > if you just had a repository definition pointing at the incubator >> > repository. >> > >> > Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator >> > artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated >> > here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts >> > created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business >> > of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests >> > of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to >> > Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating >> > projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any >> > confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really >> > see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > Jason van Zyl >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> +1. >> >> - Dan >> >> -- >> Dan Diephouse >> Envoi Solutions >> http://envoisolutions.com >> http://netzooid.com/blog >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Well it can be run around right now too. I as a user of an incubating project can request that a jar be uploaded to ibiblio. The incubator and ibiblio policies are distinct. Unless the incubator can enforce policy on the Ibiblio/Maven project for them to police the artifacts, they can currently be redistributed on Ibiblio, it is just an extra pain for me as a user. As I understand it, the ibiblio repository is under the de facto control of the Maven PMC. So, if the policy was that only project owners can upload the JARs, that would be respected. -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On 8/30/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If it comes to a VOTE, i'd vote -1 on automatic syncing of incubator artifacts to maven central repo. I would -1 it as well. The idea behind a separate repository was to make it very explicit to the user that they are fetching stuff from the Incubator. This strikes me as an end-run around that policy... -- justin Well it can be run around right now too. I as a user of an incubating project can request that a jar be uploaded to ibiblio. The incubator and ibiblio policies are distinct. Unless the incubator can enforce policy on the Ibiblio/Maven project for them to police the artifacts, they can currently be redistributed on Ibiblio, it is just an extra pain for me as a user. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 8/30/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If it comes to a VOTE, i'd vote -1 on automatic syncing of incubator artifacts to maven central repo. I would -1 it as well. The idea behind a separate repository was to make it very explicit to the user that they are fetching stuff from the Incubator. This strikes me as an end-run around that policy... -- justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
I guess, you need to read more emails on this list :) For example see [1] thanks, dims [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115440663222532&w=2 On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why? Davanum Srinivas wrote: > If it comes to a VOTE, i'd vote -1 on automatic syncing of incubator > artifacts to maven central repo. > > -- dims > > On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jason van Zyl wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > It looks like people objected to creating another mailing list for >> > policy so I just used [policy] as Robert did in a previous message. >> > >> > Henri has setup Maven repositories for the incubator and there is a >> > document which is an attempt to describe the current setup here: >> > >> > http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html >> > >> > I think that everyone agrees that a separate repository for incubating >> > projects is a good idea as >> > >> > 1) you can clearly see what incubator artifacts have been created >> > 2) we can perform analysis and create reports for incubator artifacts >> > easily (using Archiva, the maven repository manager) >> > 3) separating the administration duties of the incubator repository is >> > a good idea I think. This might involve a different instance of >> > Archiva and/or different people looking after the respective >> repositories >> > >> > I haven't looked at all the projects using Maven in the incubator but >> > cxf, the one I'm most involved with, looks like its settling on >> > versions like: >> > >> > 2.0-incubator-SNAPSHOT >> > >> > So the repository is clearly separated, and from a dependency element >> > in a Maven POM you can clearly see it's an incubator version. >> > >> > There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to >> > the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A >> > few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they >> > don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the >> > central repository because they are incubating. If each and every >> > incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above >> > then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso then >> > if you just had a repository definition pointing at the incubator >> > repository. >> > >> > Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator >> > artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated >> > here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts >> > created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business >> > of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests >> > of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to >> > Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating >> > projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any >> > confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really >> > see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > Jason van Zyl >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> +1. >> >> - Dan >> >> -- >> Dan Diephouse >> Envoi Solutions >> http://envoisolutions.com >> http://netzooid.com/blog >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Why? Davanum Srinivas wrote: If it comes to a VOTE, i'd vote -1 on automatic syncing of incubator artifacts to maven central repo. -- dims On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like people objected to creating another mailing list for > policy so I just used [policy] as Robert did in a previous message. > > Henri has setup Maven repositories for the incubator and there is a > document which is an attempt to describe the current setup here: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html > > I think that everyone agrees that a separate repository for incubating > projects is a good idea as > > 1) you can clearly see what incubator artifacts have been created > 2) we can perform analysis and create reports for incubator artifacts > easily (using Archiva, the maven repository manager) > 3) separating the administration duties of the incubator repository is > a good idea I think. This might involve a different instance of > Archiva and/or different people looking after the respective repositories > > I haven't looked at all the projects using Maven in the incubator but > cxf, the one I'm most involved with, looks like its settling on > versions like: > > 2.0-incubator-SNAPSHOT > > So the repository is clearly separated, and from a dependency element > in a Maven POM you can clearly see it's an incubator version. > > There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to > the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A > few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they > don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the > central repository because they are incubating. If each and every > incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above > then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso then > if you just had a repository definition pointing at the incubator > repository. > > Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator > artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated > here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts > created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business > of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests > of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to > Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating > projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any > confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really > see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. > > Thoughts? > > Jason van Zyl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
If it comes to a VOTE, i'd vote -1 on automatic syncing of incubator artifacts to maven central repo. -- dims On 8/30/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: > Hi, > > It looks like people objected to creating another mailing list for > policy so I just used [policy] as Robert did in a previous message. > > Henri has setup Maven repositories for the incubator and there is a > document which is an attempt to describe the current setup here: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html > > I think that everyone agrees that a separate repository for incubating > projects is a good idea as > > 1) you can clearly see what incubator artifacts have been created > 2) we can perform analysis and create reports for incubator artifacts > easily (using Archiva, the maven repository manager) > 3) separating the administration duties of the incubator repository is > a good idea I think. This might involve a different instance of > Archiva and/or different people looking after the respective repositories > > I haven't looked at all the projects using Maven in the incubator but > cxf, the one I'm most involved with, looks like its settling on > versions like: > > 2.0-incubator-SNAPSHOT > > So the repository is clearly separated, and from a dependency element > in a Maven POM you can clearly see it's an incubator version. > > There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to > the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A > few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they > don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the > central repository because they are incubating. If each and every > incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above > then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso then > if you just had a repository definition pointing at the incubator > repository. > > Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator > artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated > here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts > created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business > of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests > of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to > Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating > projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any > confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really > see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. > > Thoughts? > > Jason van Zyl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Monday 28 August 2006 11:31, Jason van Zyl wrote: Could that report be made part of the release:prepare and the release manager had to explicitly approve it?? How are we supposed to enforce that? And what if they are not using Maven? Say using either the Maven Ant Tasks, or Ivy, or just an http get to get artifacts from a repository. We are probably misunderstanding each other... The question that came up was about transitive dependencies, which the user do not necessarily check for, and could end up being dependent on incubating projects against his/her will. Something that can't happen for snapshots (unless you bypass Maven's intended behaviours) You said, that one can check the full set of dependencies from a report generated by Maven2. I said, if that report could be output during the release:prepare phase, and that if the release:prepare phase would require the release manager to approve the use of that dependency tree, then we put the responsibility in the hands of the Maven2 user. You then start talking about 'enforcement'... And I am lost. Enforcing what? If the report can be generated, then either your statement above isn't valid, or the report is not capable of reporting the dependencies, in which case the original statement is not accurate. I suspect that you are trying to find problems with non-Maven systems, but that can always happen and not the issue at hand. BuildSystemAbc could pull down all kinds of stuff for the users, including snapshots, pirated software and virii. IMHO, Maven repositories exist mainly to support Maven and Maven-compatible(!) build systems. Your suggestions in the original mail is very good, and *I* don't have any opinion about whether a separate Incubating repository is needed or not. Both arguments for and against sound reasonable. I don't really think that this is going to help anything. The user is always in control. The responsibility has never left their hands. Lets step away from the incubator a sec and take GPL jars for instance - if there is a transitive dependency on GPL jars, the user is completely responsible for that. Why would it be any different for an incubator JAR? - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, It looks like people objected to creating another mailing list for policy so I just used [policy] as Robert did in a previous message. Henri has setup Maven repositories for the incubator and there is a document which is an attempt to describe the current setup here: http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html I think that everyone agrees that a separate repository for incubating projects is a good idea as 1) you can clearly see what incubator artifacts have been created 2) we can perform analysis and create reports for incubator artifacts easily (using Archiva, the maven repository manager) 3) separating the administration duties of the incubator repository is a good idea I think. This might involve a different instance of Archiva and/or different people looking after the respective repositories I haven't looked at all the projects using Maven in the incubator but cxf, the one I'm most involved with, looks like its settling on versions like: 2.0-incubator-SNAPSHOT So the repository is clearly separated, and from a dependency element in a Maven POM you can clearly see it's an incubator version. There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the central repository because they are incubating. If each and every incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso then if you just had a repository definition pointing at the incubator repository. Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. Thoughts? Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1. - Dan -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions http://envoisolutions.com http://netzooid.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 28 Aug 06, at 11:44 AM 28 Aug 06, Leo Simons wrote: On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:44:58PM -0400, Jason van Zyl wrote: There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the central repository because they are incubating. If each and every incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso then if you just had a repository definition pointing at the incubator repository. Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. Thoughts? "central repository" is ibiblio.org right? Correct. Eg not an ASF machine? Correct. I think its not up to the incubator to dictate policies on what external parties should and should not do with our software. It all comes back to being clear to users and providing a consistent message, and I think the steps we agreed on here (seperate repo, clear versioning, incubation notices on website and in readme) are sufficient, and I doubt we should go any further than that. If other ASF projects depend on projects that depend on projects that depend on incubating projects that are published on the ibiblio site and that is not sufficiently clear for users of that project, then that's not the responsibility of the incubator pmc to fix. IOW, I don't really want to to get into the business of policing anything but the bits we're actually responsible for policing :) So I'll withold actual thoughts (which would've been along the lines of "centralized storage is so 1990s") ;) LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:44:58PM -0400, Jason van Zyl wrote: > There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to > the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. A > few folks with incubating projects have voiced concerns that they > don't want to see their projects be taken out of circulation in the > central repository because they are incubating. If each and every > incubating project has a version for each artifact like that above > then it will be fairly clear that it's from the incubator. Moreso > then if you just had a repository definition pointing at the > incubator repository. > > Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator > artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy > mandated here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute > artifacts created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into > the business of policing repository requests. I think it is in the > best interests of the incubating projects to have the incubator > repository sync'd to Maven's central repository. The source of > artifacts for incubating projects is clear from the version so I > don't think there will be any confusion by consumers of these > artifacts and as such I don't really see any downside to allowing the > sync to Maven's central repository. > > Thoughts? "central repository" is ibiblio.org right? Eg not an ASF machine? I think its not up to the incubator to dictate policies on what external parties should and should not do with our software. It all comes back to being clear to users and providing a consistent message, and I think the steps we agreed on here (seperate repo, clear versioning, incubation notices on website and in readme) are sufficient, and I doubt we should go any further than that. If other ASF projects depend on projects that depend on projects that depend on incubating projects that are published on the ibiblio site and that is not sufficiently clear for users of that project, then that's not the responsibility of the incubator pmc to fix. IOW, I don't really want to to get into the business of policing anything but the bits we're actually responsible for policing :) So I'll withold actual thoughts (which would've been along the lines of "centralized storage is so 1990s") ;) LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:31, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > Could that report be made part of the release:prepare and the > > release manager > > had to explicitly approve it?? > > How are we supposed to enforce that? And what if they are not using > Maven? Say using either the Maven Ant Tasks, or Ivy, or just an http > get to get artifacts from a repository. We are probably misunderstanding each other... The question that came up was about transitive dependencies, which the user do not necessarily check for, and could end up being dependent on incubating projects against his/her will. Something that can't happen for snapshots (unless you bypass Maven's intended behaviours) You said, that one can check the full set of dependencies from a report generated by Maven2. I said, if that report could be output during the release:prepare phase, and that if the release:prepare phase would require the release manager to approve the use of that dependency tree, then we put the responsibility in the hands of the Maven2 user. You then start talking about 'enforcement'... And I am lost. Enforcing what? If the report can be generated, then either your statement above isn't valid, or the report is not capable of reporting the dependencies, in which case the original statement is not accurate. I suspect that you are trying to find problems with non-Maven systems, but that can always happen and not the issue at hand. BuildSystemAbc could pull down all kinds of stuff for the users, including snapshots, pirated software and virii. IMHO, Maven repositories exist mainly to support Maven and Maven-compatible(!) build systems. Your suggestions in the original mail is very good, and *I* don't have any opinion about whether a separate Incubating repository is needed or not. Both arguments for and against sound reasonable. Cheers Niclas Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 27 Aug 06, at 10:26 PM 27 Aug 06, Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Monday 28 August 2006 08:58, Jason van Zyl wrote: Perhaps Maven can help by not allowing the transitive dependency on incubating projects? Just thinking out loud... If you can clearly see what you have in a report so I'm not sure we would want to put any special rules in place to deal with artifacts from incubator. Could that report be made part of the release:prepare and the release manager had to explicitly approve it?? How are we supposed to enforce that? And what if they are not using Maven? Say using either the Maven Ant Tasks, or Ivy, or just an http get to get artifacts from a repository. If so, then I'm totally cool with no other Maven adjustments to deal with incubating projects. Generating the site is not part of a standard release, though it's usually done as part of a release, and I'm not sure how you're going to enforce that for every possible project that might use something from the incubator. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On Monday 28 August 2006 08:58, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > Perhaps Maven can help by not allowing the transitive dependency on > > incubating projects? Just thinking out loud... > > If you can clearly see what you have in a report so I'm not sure we > would want to put any special rules in place to deal with artifacts > from incubator. Could that report be made part of the release:prepare and the release manager had to explicitly approve it?? If so, then I'm totally cool with no other Maven adjustments to deal with incubating projects. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On 27 Aug 06, at 6:28 PM 27 Aug 06, Craig L Russell wrote: On Aug 27, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: Hi, On 8/27/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. [...] Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. Me neither. But why do we then need the separate incubator repository if the artifacts get synchronized with the central repository? As I mentioned in the thread before the Incubator Maven repository was created, it makes more sense to enforce an "incubator" label on the artifact versions than enforcing a specific "incubator" repository. Especially since there is no way for us to really enforce that repository policy. I agree. I understand that we want users who choose to use an incubating project's artifacts to declaratively state that. If the artifact's name contains "incubating" then it's pretty clear. The only thing that muddles things for me is when using an m2 repository that contains a non-incubating project with a dependency on an incubating project. Then, a project that depends on the project that is itself not in the incubator might not even know that it's using an incubating project. The standard dependency report shows all transitive dependencies so you can definitely see what you're using: http://maven.apache.org/continuum/dependencies.html Could be a little better in display but you can see what's in your dependency set. There are also things like the netbeans m2 integration which draws nice graphs of the dependencies. Can this happen? Is it likely? If you don't look at the dependency report or a graph then I suppose it could. Is there any policy that we can put into place to avoid that projects with dependencies on projects with incubating projects accidentally have this dependency? Perhaps Maven can help by not allowing the transitive dependency on incubating projects? Just thinking out loud... If you can clearly see what you have in a report so I'm not sure we would want to put any special rules in place to deal with artifacts from incubator. Craig BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
On Aug 27, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote: Hi, On 8/27/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. [...] Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. Me neither. But why do we then need the separate incubator repository if the artifacts get synchronized with the central repository? As I mentioned in the thread before the Incubator Maven repository was created, it makes more sense to enforce an "incubator" label on the artifact versions than enforcing a specific "incubator" repository. Especially since there is no way for us to really enforce that repository policy. I agree. I understand that we want users who choose to use an incubating project's artifacts to declaratively state that. If the artifact's name contains "incubating" then it's pretty clear. The only thing that muddles things for me is when using an m2 repository that contains a non-incubating project with a dependency on an incubating project. Then, a project that depends on the project that is itself not in the incubator might not even know that it's using an incubating project. Can this happen? Is it likely? Is there any policy that we can put into place to avoid that projects with dependencies on projects with incubating projects accidentally have this dependency? Perhaps Maven can help by not allowing the transitive dependency on incubating projects? Just thinking out loud... Craig BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [policy] incubating projects and maven repositories v1.0
Hi, On 8/27/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There was discussion that incubator repository would not be sync'd to the central repository but I don't really see much point in this. [...] Also someone may make an repository request to place an incubator artifact in the central repository and at this point a policy mandated here would conflict with someone's right to redistribute artifacts created in the incubator. I don't really want to get into the business of policing repository requests. I think it is in the best interests of the incubating projects to have the incubator repository sync'd to Maven's central repository. The source of artifacts for incubating projects is clear from the version so I don't think there will be any confusion by consumers of these artifacts and as such I don't really see any downside to allowing the sync to Maven's central repository. Me neither. But why do we then need the separate incubator repository if the artifacts get synchronized with the central repository? As I mentioned in the thread before the Incubator Maven repository was created, it makes more sense to enforce an "incubator" label on the artifact versions than enforcing a specific "incubator" repository. Especially since there is no way for us to really enforce that repository policy. BR, Jukka Zitting -- Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
