metron-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Foley <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Mtron Project Maturity
Date Fri, 20 Jan 2017 18:21:46 GMT
Eh, I just realized my comment on RE40 is wrong.  We are adding RPM-building tools, but we
do not currently release built RPMs as part of our releases. (I hope this will change :-)
 So James’s original response is correct, at least for now.  Sorry.

On 1/20/17, 10:15 AM, "Matt Foley" < on behalf of>

    James, looks great overall.  A few nits, and two fixes:
    CD10 – “under under” – de-dup.
    CD30 – “is can be” - delete “is”
    CD50 – “First, is” –  “is” should be “it is”
    LC50 – This doesn’t exactly answer the question.  It is a question about copyright,
not licensing.  (eg, see the NOTICE files in github)
    A better response would be:
    “We document copyrights of all included source code in compliance with Apache licensing
    RE40 – It is not correct that we don’t distribute convenience binaries.  We are in
the process of adding RPMs to the sub-components that don’t already have them.  A better
response would be:
    “Although we do provide convenience binaries for some parts of the project releases,
(a) each release can be fully built from sources and used without reference to the convenience
binaries, and (b) the convenience binaries are documented to not be warranted or guaranteed
in any way.”
    It might be advisable to check the documentation to confirm (b).
    QU30 – “identified addressed” – insert “and”
    “the Metron's” – delete “the”
    QU50 – “Metorn” – should be “Metron”
    On 1/20/17, 9:38 AM, "James Sirota" <> wrote:
        I went through the Apache Project Maturity document and documented how Metron meets
each of these criteria.  My draft is available here.  What do you guys think?  Anything you
would like to add/revise about this?
        Thank you,
        James Sirota
        PPMC- Apache Metron (Incubating)
        jsirota AT apache DOT org

View raw message