Eric Yang 2013-09-13, 22:53
ant elder 2013-09-22, 05:01
Tim Williams 2013-09-14, 00:18
ant elder 2013-09-14, 06:55
-Re: binary release artifacts
Luciano Resende 2013-09-14, 01:23
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM, 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.
> 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.
> > the binary package, the files are located in $PREFIX/share/doc/chukwa to
> > match what standard Linux file system layout. We voted for source
> > and there is no Apache restriction that a source release, can not
> > 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.
> > 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."
> > On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Tim Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Maybe my subscription was confirmed yet the first time I sent this...
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> Hi Chukwa devs,
> >> I noticed you have a binary convenience artifact in the release
> >> location that doesn't have a LICENSE or a NOTICE in it. In looking
> >> back at the release vote, it seems like you chose to only vote a
> >> source release (admittedly easier).
> >> You can't vote on a source-only release and then also release the
> >> binary artifact. I think you guys should remove the binary from dist.
> >> Then, there's the potential that I'm missing something here, in which
> >> case, I'd appreciate an explanation:)
> >> Thanks,
> >> --tim
> >>  - http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/chukwa/chukwa-0.5.0/
> >>  -
> >>  -
+1, only artifacts reviewed and approved by votes should be distributed as
a release. If a release is providing a source tarball, binary tarball, and
maven binaries, then all these should be reviewed and voted as part of the
release, otherwise they should not be distributed.
Tim Williams 2013-09-13, 10:41