You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@thrift.apache.org by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> on 2009/11/21 01:34:42 UTC
Distribution management
At Apache we do our work where it can be inspected by
the public while it is in progress. That work, carried
out in the subversion repository, is not to be publicized
to end users as a place to pick up the latest and greatest
distribution of our software. End users ALWAYS need to
be directed to formally approved releases. Not only does
that give the project space to do active development on
branches / trunk that hasn't been put to a vote yet, it
means that users have clear guidelines where the project
is willing to extend whatever stability promises it wishes
to make to it's users.
The foundation does not consider subversion as a valid
distribution mechanism for software releases. In fact
we don't expect software in subversion to be vetted for
licensing issues until it comes time for a release, so
please do not point end users to svn!
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com>
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 10:55:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Distribution management
>
> I certainly don't think that Thrift should leave Apache, but I don't think that
> it's reasonable lack of motivation on the part of the active developers that is
> keeping Thrift in the incubator. We have tried several times to get all the
> licensing stuff in order, and it's just never managed to come together.
> Partially it seems to be that some of the contributors haven't supplied the
> appropriate documentation, and partially it seems to be that when they have,
> those documents have gone missing on receipt. Perhaps because of the extremely
> large number of contributors to Thrift this is more of an issue than for other
> incubating projects.
>
> We really need a champion at Apache who knows their way around the process and
> has the ear of legal (or whoever it is that is supposed to have our documents)
> who can assist a point Thrifter in getting this stuff all squared away.
> Personally, while I read the threads about the release process, I feel pretty
> powerless to participate.
>
> -Bryan
>
Todd is on the right track with respect to getting the legal issues in order.
The only thing he's not able to resolve is the LGPL issue on those 2 build files. I can ping the legal team again to see if they're willing to deal with the issue (favorably or not).
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Bryan Duxbury <br...@rapleaf.com>.
I certainly don't think that Thrift should leave Apache, but I don't
think that it's reasonable lack of motivation on the part of the
active developers that is keeping Thrift in the incubator. We have
tried several times to get all the licensing stuff in order, and it's
just never managed to come together. Partially it seems to be that
some of the contributors haven't supplied the appropriate
documentation, and partially it seems to be that when they have,
those documents have gone missing on receipt. Perhaps because of the
extremely large number of contributors to Thrift this is more of an
issue than for other incubating projects.
We really need a champion at Apache who knows their way around the
process and has the ear of legal (or whoever it is that is supposed
to have our documents) who can assist a point Thrifter in getting
this stuff all squared away. Personally, while I read the threads
about the release process, I feel pretty powerless to participate.
-Bryan
On Nov 20, 2009, at 9:59 PM, Kevin Clark wrote:
> I hadn't realized we were playing baseball.
>
> Please. Please please please kick Thrift out of Apache incubation
> status*. I can't see the light of a release without that. You're
> right. People aren't moving anymore. This is because we've tried this
> before:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/
> msg05022.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/
> msg04584.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/
> msg04449.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/
> msg04361.html
>
> Jake even proposes we're good to go:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/
> msg05351.html
>
> Somewhere in the middle there our mentors ignored us for a while.
>
> And here's where you (you, Joe) mention that you've (you the ASF (as
> you're paid to enforce their policy, apparently)) lost another round
> of documents and we've got to start the licensing audit over again:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/
> msg05392.html
>
>
> It's great that Todd still has the motivation and stamina to jump
> through the ASF hoops. I certainly don't, though I'm happy to support
> him. I'd certainly +1 if someone wanted to put up a vote for committer
> if that will help him get done what he needs. And you're right, it
> seems I haven't replied to 622 again (sorry Todd). I'll fix that
> momentarily (though the thread seems unresolved to me, despite my
> personal failure to follow up).
>
>
> On the matter of svn vs distribution: in light of the lack of support
> to create a release from the codebase we keep at Apache I, personally,
> will continue to use versions I've cut for myself out of svn. The code
> has been useful and something I think many have considered stable for
> a rather long time. I'm removing myself as a member of the foundation
> so I'm happy to advocate this pragmatic (though sadly flawed)
> technique that has been forced on the community by an organization
> fascinated by red tape.
>
>
> * I'm speaking only for myself here.
>
> --
> Kevin Clark
> http://glu.ttono.us
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Kevin Clark <ke...@gmail.com>.
I hadn't realized we were playing baseball.
Please. Please please please kick Thrift out of Apache incubation
status*. I can't see the light of a release without that. You're
right. People aren't moving anymore. This is because we've tried this
before:
http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg05022.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg04584.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg04449.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg04361.html
Jake even proposes we're good to go:
http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg05351.html
Somewhere in the middle there our mentors ignored us for a while.
And here's where you (you, Joe) mention that you've (you the ASF (as
you're paid to enforce their policy, apparently)) lost another round
of documents and we've got to start the licensing audit over again:
http://www.mail-archive.com/thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org/msg05392.html
It's great that Todd still has the motivation and stamina to jump
through the ASF hoops. I certainly don't, though I'm happy to support
him. I'd certainly +1 if someone wanted to put up a vote for committer
if that will help him get done what he needs. And you're right, it
seems I haven't replied to 622 again (sorry Todd). I'll fix that
momentarily (though the thread seems unresolved to me, despite my
personal failure to follow up).
On the matter of svn vs distribution: in light of the lack of support
to create a release from the codebase we keep at Apache I, personally,
will continue to use versions I've cut for myself out of svn. The code
has been useful and something I think many have considered stable for
a rather long time. I'm removing myself as a member of the foundation
so I'm happy to advocate this pragmatic (though sadly flawed)
technique that has been forced on the community by an organization
fascinated by red tape.
* I'm speaking only for myself here.
--
Kevin Clark
http://glu.ttono.us
RE: Distribution management
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The problem with Thrift isn't exactly sudden, so there's no
> need for the Incubator PMC to be immediately concerned with it.
But thank you for pointing it out to the PMC as a whole, and for addressing
it. I have reviewed the e-mails, and concur with your essential points.
--- Noel
RE: Distribution management
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The problem with Thrift isn't exactly sudden, so there's no
> need for the Incubator PMC to be immediately concerned with it.
But thank you for pointing it out to the PMC as a whole, and for addressing
it. I have reviewed the e-mails, and concur with your essential points.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I haven't looked at other Incubator projects to see if
the problem exists outside of Thrift, but the information
was written in a general way because I'm sure some incubating
projects aren't all that familiar with how Apache views svn
distributions.
The problem with Thrift isn't exactly sudden, so there's no
need for the IPMC to be immediately concerned with it. Hopefully
they will cut a release before their next reporting period
and things will be mostly fine again.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 4:50:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Distribution management
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ...The fact
> > is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
> > the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be
> addressed....
>
> Is Thrift the only example that you had in mind?
>
> -Bertrand
>
> (dunno about others, personally I much prefer such discussions to be
> specific as in "I think there's problem X with project Y" as opposed
> to vague "some people are doing X" statements - makes it easier to see
> the ins and outs of such cases)
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
I haven't looked at other Incubator projects to see if
the problem exists outside of Thrift, but the information
was written in a general way because I'm sure some incubating
projects aren't all that familiar with how Apache views svn
distributions.
The problem with Thrift isn't exactly sudden, so there's no
need for the IPMC to be immediately concerned with it. Hopefully
they will cut a release before their next reporting period
and things will be mostly fine again.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 4:50:45 AM
> Subject: Re: Distribution management
>
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ...The fact
> > is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
> > the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be
> addressed....
>
> Is Thrift the only example that you had in mind?
>
> -Bertrand
>
> (dunno about others, personally I much prefer such discussions to be
> specific as in "I think there's problem X with project Y" as opposed
> to vague "some people are doing X" statements - makes it easier to see
> the ins and outs of such cases)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...The fact
> is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
> the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be addressed....
Is Thrift the only example that you had in mind?
-Bertrand
(dunno about others, personally I much prefer such discussions to be
specific as in "I think there's problem X with project Y" as opposed
to vague "some people are doing X" statements - makes it easier to see
the ins and outs of such cases)
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...The fact
> is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
> the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be addressed....
Is Thrift the only example that you had in mind?
-Bertrand
(dunno about others, personally I much prefer such discussions to be
specific as in "I think there's problem X with project Y" as opposed
to vague "some people are doing X" statements - makes it easier to see
the ins and outs of such cases)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Kevin Clark <ke...@gmail.com>
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 11:02:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Distribution management
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > At Apache we do our work where it can be inspected by
> > the public while it is in progress. That work, carried
> > out in the subversion repository, is not to be publicized
> > to end users as a place to pick up the latest and greatest
> > distribution of our software. End users ALWAYS need to
> > be directed to formally approved releases. Not only does
> > that give the project space to do active development on
> > branches / trunk that hasn't been put to a vote yet, it
> > means that users have clear guidelines where the project
> > is willing to extend whatever stability promises it wishes
> > to make to it's users.
> >
> > The foundation does not consider subversion as a valid
> > distribution mechanism for software releases. In fact
> > we don't expect software in subversion to be vetted for
> > licensing issues until it comes time for a release, so
> > please do not point end users to svn!
> >
>
> I'm glad you have a way you like to do things "at Apache".
It's not my way, it's foundation policy, and part of what I'm paid to do
is enforce it. For details on the policy see
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
I'll quote the relevant section for you:
What Is A Release?
"Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside
the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being
instructed to download a package, then that package has been released.
Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release.
How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below."
Things that violate the release policy are things like download pages
on the website that point at subversion instead of an actual vetted release
(something Thrift has continued to do despite gentle nudging by the IPMC).
> But we're not children and we don't owe you anything. When you treat
> us like this you discourage involvement and drive people away from
> the Apache process.
I'm not exactly sure who we and you are but I'll assume you mean we thrift devs
and you joes. I'll remind you I started getting involved in Thrift after
Leo Simons sent this list a gentle prodding to fix the download page. Ignoring
him was strike 1. I sent you guys a patch to address your incorrect LICENSE
document in THRIFT-387, in the hopes we could cut a release in short order after the legal issues were addressed. Ignoring me was strike 2. I'm getting the impression that you guys have also decided to ignore Todd Lipcom, who put in considerable effort into a license audit in THRIFT-622.
> I'm sure people are perfectly willing to direct others that subversion
> revisions aren't releases, so don't be an jerk about it.
That isn't the point. If you tell users this is where the software is that they should use, you are releasing it to them: the lack of packaging or versioning on the software makes no difference. Subversion is for people who wish to participate in project development, not for end users. The fact
is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be addressed.
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Kevin Clark <ke...@gmail.com>
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Fri, November 20, 2009 11:02:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Distribution management
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > At Apache we do our work where it can be inspected by
> > the public while it is in progress. That work, carried
> > out in the subversion repository, is not to be publicized
> > to end users as a place to pick up the latest and greatest
> > distribution of our software. End users ALWAYS need to
> > be directed to formally approved releases. Not only does
> > that give the project space to do active development on
> > branches / trunk that hasn't been put to a vote yet, it
> > means that users have clear guidelines where the project
> > is willing to extend whatever stability promises it wishes
> > to make to it's users.
> >
> > The foundation does not consider subversion as a valid
> > distribution mechanism for software releases. In fact
> > we don't expect software in subversion to be vetted for
> > licensing issues until it comes time for a release, so
> > please do not point end users to svn!
> >
>
> I'm glad you have a way you like to do things "at Apache".
It's not my way, it's foundation policy, and part of what I'm paid to do
is enforce it. For details on the policy see
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
I'll quote the relevant section for you:
What Is A Release?
"Releases are, by definition, anything that is published beyond the
group that owns it. In our case, that means any publication outside
the group of people on the product dev list. If the general public is being
instructed to download a package, then that package has been released.
Each PMC must obey the ASF requirements on approving any release.
How you label the package is a secondary issue, described below."
Things that violate the release policy are things like download pages
on the website that point at subversion instead of an actual vetted release
(something Thrift has continued to do despite gentle nudging by the IPMC).
> But we're not children and we don't owe you anything. When you treat
> us like this you discourage involvement and drive people away from
> the Apache process.
I'm not exactly sure who we and you are but I'll assume you mean we thrift devs
and you joes. I'll remind you I started getting involved in Thrift after
Leo Simons sent this list a gentle prodding to fix the download page. Ignoring
him was strike 1. I sent you guys a patch to address your incorrect LICENSE
document in THRIFT-387, in the hopes we could cut a release in short order after the legal issues were addressed. Ignoring me was strike 2. I'm getting the impression that you guys have also decided to ignore Todd Lipcom, who put in considerable effort into a license audit in THRIFT-622.
> I'm sure people are perfectly willing to direct others that subversion
> revisions aren't releases, so don't be an jerk about it.
That isn't the point. If you tell users this is where the software is that they should use, you are releasing it to them: the lack of packaging or versioning on the software makes no difference. Subversion is for people who wish to participate in project development, not for end users. The fact
is that the extended thrift community has been using subversion to distribute
the software to end users for a long time now, and that needs to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Distribution management
Posted by Kevin Clark <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At Apache we do our work where it can be inspected by
> the public while it is in progress. That work, carried
> out in the subversion repository, is not to be publicized
> to end users as a place to pick up the latest and greatest
> distribution of our software. End users ALWAYS need to
> be directed to formally approved releases. Not only does
> that give the project space to do active development on
> branches / trunk that hasn't been put to a vote yet, it
> means that users have clear guidelines where the project
> is willing to extend whatever stability promises it wishes
> to make to it's users.
>
> The foundation does not consider subversion as a valid
> distribution mechanism for software releases. In fact
> we don't expect software in subversion to be vetted for
> licensing issues until it comes time for a release, so
> please do not point end users to svn!
>
I'm glad you have a way you like to do things "at Apache". But we're
not children and we don't owe you anything. When you treat us like
this you discourage involvement and drive people away from the Apache
process.
I'm sure people are perfectly willing to direct others that subversion
revisions aren't releases, so don't be an jerk about it.
I'm
--
Kevin Clark
http://glu.ttono.us