Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Plain View
Chukwa >> mail # dev >> Re: binary release artifacts


+
Eric Yang 2013-09-13, 22:53
+
ant elder 2013-09-22, 05:01
+
Tim Williams 2013-09-14, 00:18
Copy link to this message
-
Re: binary release artifacts
On Saturday, September 14, 2013, Tim Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> I've included references inline for your convenience.  I'll once again
> [strongly] suggest you guys remove that artifact.
>
> Thanks,
> --tim
>
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> There is LICENSE.txt and NOTICES.txt in both source and binary package.
 In
>> the binary package, the files are located in $PREFIX/share/doc/chukwa to
>> match what standard Linux file system layout.  We voted for source
release
>> and there is no Apache restriction that a source release, can not
procedure
>> a binary package.
>
> "Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority
> approval -- i.e., at least three PMC members must vote affirmatively
> for release, and there must be more positive than negative votes."
>
> Each vote is on signed, hashed artifacts, so yes, if you say it's a
> "source vote" then no binary should accompany it.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
>
>> There is also no restriction that binary release must
>> have LICENSE.txt and NOTICES.txt in the top level directory.
>
> How do you reach that understanding from the sentence below?
>
> "Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top
> directory, along with the standard LICENSE file."
>

Plenty of other release artifacts from other projects have these files
somewhere other than the top directory, eg most jar releases have them in
the meta-inf directory.

There is also ambiguity around convenience binary releases in the ASF docs
and the historical mailing list discussions around those, so a little
flexibility is warranted. I recall there was once a some bugs in the maven
plugin for building jars which meant several projects distributing jar
artifacts with missing or completely incorrect license/notice files, and
those artifacts weren't pulled . I also recall on one project where an
artifact was discovered distributed without a release vote and the solution
was just to have a posthumous vote. The important thing here in my opinion
is to get a common understanding of how convenience binary artifacts will
be handled in the future that everyone is happy with.

   ...ant
+
Luciano Resende 2013-09-14, 01:23
+
Tim Williams 2013-09-13, 10:41