Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion

On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 14:36, Craig L Russell
> <Craig.Russell_at_sun.com> wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 14:21, Craig L Russell
>>> <Craig.Russell_at_sun.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But with all that said, how about we do this: we'll do a 1.6.7
>>>>> release
>>>>> from the 1.6.x branch after we do the code import. That release
>>>>> will
>>>>> be performed by svncorp (we don't want to touch every file on that
>>>>> branch to relicense it, and to switch file headers). The release
>>>>> process can be followed/tracked by the Incubator PMC. I'll make
>>>>> sure
>>>>> to relay pointers to all relevant threads as the release is
>>>>> performed.
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think that releasing svn by svncorp without any Apache
>>>> license
>>>> proves anything except that they can make a release after moving
>>>> the
>>>> repository. So if it makes anyone happy, fine. But it's not an
>>>> Apache
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing a release after it's been licensed to
>>>> Apache
>>>> and
>>>> has all of the Apache license, notice, and packaging.
>>>
>>> It already has the Apache License (v2), and it uses a NOTICE file
>>> (per
>>> the license), and our packaging is tighter/stronger than typical
>>> Apache releases (per Justin's note). Are there other items to an
>>> "Apache release" that are needed to demonstrate that the svn project
>>> understands the proper release process?
>>
>> I guess I don't understand your comment here:
>>
>>>>> (we don't want to touch every file on that
>>>>> branch to relicense it, and to switch file headers).
>>
>> That sounds like your plan is to relicense, or am I misreading you?
>
> All of the existing tags/branches of svn use a tweaked Apache Software
> License, v1.1, and generally have a file header claims a copyright by
> CollabNet.
>
> trunk is licensed under Apache License, v2, and has a file header as
> defined by the Apache Legal Affairs Committee, though with SVNCorp
> rather than ASF as the rights-holder to the distribution. After we
> import the codebase, we intend to tweak all of the file headers on
> trunk with s/SVNCorp/ASF/.
>
>
> Now... if we were to make a release from one of those branches, then I
> believe we would need to relicense and rewrite all of their file
> headers before making that release. That is a lot of disruption for
> what is supposed to be a patch release.
>
> The Subversion project has a policy to support the prior release, and
> to provide security fixes for the release before that. Today, that is
> 1.6.x and 1.5.x, respectively. I honestly don't know how we're going
> to make those point releases, but gotta believe there is existing
> precedent. Right *now*, svncorp is still around and can make that
> 1.6.7 release. Six months from now? Dunno.

For my money, I'd prefer to see a real Apache release with the real
copyright notices and licenses that the project intends to ship.

Perhaps make an alpha 1.7 from the trunk? Doesn't even need to work
perfectly, since the process to make sure a release works is already
known.

We have required every incubating project for the last few years to
make a release before graduation.

Craig
>
>
> Does that clarify my message?
>
> Thanks,
> -g
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe_at_incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help_at_incubator.apache.org
>

Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell_at_sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2415296