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

Switch to Threaded View
Pig >> mail # dev >> Pig 0.11

We need to be aggressive about mentioning the ant step to users all
over the docs, as they may have never built software before.

Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney
On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No blog posts, but a long and tortured email thread on incubator general:  http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201203.mbox/%3CCAOFYJNY%3DEjVHrWVvAedR3OKwCv-BkTaCbEu0ufp7OZR_gpCTiA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> In a nutshell the logic is:
> 1) Apache's legal constituting documents require this, I think mostly for reason 2 below.
> 2) PMC members can't examine binaries.  If I generate a binary and give it to you to vote on, how do you know I haven't nefariously hidden a virus in the binary?  With source you can personally check everything and make sure nothing evil has been done.  The same applies to end users who pick up the code.
> 3) Many Apache projects are repackaged by OS vendors, etc. (Redhat, and so on).  They prefer source releases because they want to reconfigure the layout in their own way anyway.
> Alan.
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jonathan Coveney wrote:
>> Alan,
>> Are there any blog posts or whatnot explaining the logic behind this?
>> Just curious
>> Jon
>> 2012/10/25 Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> There's one other issue I believe we should resolve before we release
>>> 0.11.  As part of my work with the Incubator I've learned that official
>>> Apache releases aren't supposed to have any binary code (including any
>>> jars) in them.  Due to some recent issues with projects in the incubator
>>> this has become a hot topic and some Apache members/officers have become
>>> keen on making sure projects are in compliance.  Obviously Pig has been in
>>> violation of this for a while now (oops).  We are still free to provide
>>> "convenience packages" that contain the binaries, but they cannot be what
>>> we vote on or what we sign and release.
>>> What this practically means for us is we need a new ant target that just
>>> tars up the source and we need to change the release procedures slightly to
>>> sign and checksum the resulting tarball.  We would then post both the
>>> source release and the "convenience package" which would be the same
>>> release we have always done.
>>> All the changes for this can be done in build.xml and the build procedures
>>> wiki and are thus quite low risk.  I volunteer to do it.  I believe we
>>> should do this for this release to avoid any issues with Apache.
>>> Alan.
>>> On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote:
>>>> There are still 76 unresolved JIRAs more than half unassigned. Lets
>>> clean this up by theend of this week. I propose we do the following:
>>>> (1) Unlink all JIRAs for new features since we already branched so we
>>> should not be taken on new work. If people feel strongly that some new
>>> features still need to go in please bring it up.
>>>> (2) For bug fixes, if people fill strongly that some of the unassigned
>>> issues need to be addressed please take ownership. If you are unable to
>>> solve them but still feel they are important, please, bring them up.
>>>> (3) Owners of unresolved issues, please, take a look if you will have
>>> time to solve them in the next 2 weeks. If not, lets move them to 12. If
>>> you can't address them but feel they are important, please, bring it up.
>>>> Lets make sure that all JIRAs that require changes to the documentation
>>> have appropriate information in the release notes section so that we can
>>> quickly compile release documentation.
>>>> Thanks for you help!
>>>> Olga
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Alan Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 11:55 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Pig 0.11
>>>> At this point no one has taken on release documentation for 0.11.
>>>> Alan.
>>>> On Oct 15, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote: