Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Greg Stein <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.rapidsvn.devel,gmane.comp.apache.incubator.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <6cca3db30911061144h6528e344y7d1e5f0750ca17d__15077.6108181619$1257536719$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> |
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 14:36, Craig L Russell <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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. Does that clarify my message? Thanks, -g