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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.