Hi, I had the following error when executing the command: ./gradlew publishDist -Prc=1 -Pasf
> Task :releaseRepository Initialized stagingRepositoryId orgapachecalcite-1089 for repository nexus <======-------> 50% EXECUTING [1m 17s] GET request failed. 404: Not Found, body: [errors:[[id:*, msg:No such repository: orgapachecalcite-1089]]] Requested operation was executed successfully in attempt 117 (maximum allowed 601) > Task :createReleaseTag Created tag calcite-1.23.0 -> Ref[refs/tags/calcite-1.23.0=7c3001d97497ca60b8e2039e8f3c96ca8672fae8(-1)] > Task :pushReleaseTag Pushing tag to Git remote release-origin: https://github.com/apache/calcite.git Message from release-origin: refs/tags/calcite-1.23.0: OK, 7c3001d97497ca60b8e2039e8f3c96ca8672fae8 (fastForward) BUILD SUCCESSFUL in 5m 0s 4 actionable tasks: 4 executed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But it said build successful. Is there anything I can do for the 404 Not Found error? Thanks, Haisheng On 2020/05/22 20:37:35, Laurent Goujon <laur...@dremio.com> wrote: > My intent was not to cause sadness, sorry about that. > > I should have elaborated a bit more why I don't think Github is that much > of an issue: > - LICENSE file at the root of the project is the source of truth, not > Github mention. It is a nice to have the correct license for Github for > sure, but it seems more important to me to have LICENSE includes the 3rd > party dependencies present in our source tree than having the license > displayed at the top of the github UI. > > - As for the embox project you mentioned, it's probably because the license > is short and BSD licenses have very similar texts. Here's what license says > about the project: > > $ licensee detect https://github.com/embox/embox > License: NOASSERTION > Matched files: COPYRIGHT > COPYRIGHT: > Content hash: 77dc7c8c10d1ed9bc1546f2d6bba18a809e235c7 > License: NOASSERTION > Closest non-matching licenses: > BSD-2-Clause similarity: 89.59% > BSD-3-Clause similarity: 83.54% > BSD-4-Clause similarity: 77.82% > > $ licensee license-path https://github.com/embox/embox > COPYRIGHT > > Here's now what licensee says the LICENSE file from the source distribution > tarball: > > $ licensee detect ./apache-calcite-1.23.0-src > License: Apache-2.0 > Matched files: LICENSE > LICENSE: > Content hash: ab3901051663cb8ee5dea9ebdff406ad136910e3 > Confidence: 100.00% > Matcher: Licensee::Matchers::Exact > License: Apache-2.0 > > $ licensee license-path ./apache-calcite-1.23.0-src > /xxx/apache-calcite-1.23.0-src/LICENSE > > It seems that adding several mentions at the bottom, licensee has no > trouble identifying the apache license because the text is so large and so > distinctive. It is corroborated by my own personal experience of checking > license for many many dependencies and comparing between Maven pom.xml, > github mention, and actual LICENSE/source file headers than when people are > using ASL 2.0, even with copyright mention + extra stuff after the main > text, Github gets it right. > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 12:32 PM Vladimir Sitnikov < > sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Laurent>As for Github, I think this is a non-issue > > > > I have provided an example: https://github.com/embox/embox > > It is an example when GitHub fails to detect the license. > > > > It is really sad to hear that "you think it is a non-issue" even in case > > you have seen the failure case. > > > > Laurent>on the source distribution and it has no issue identifying the > > license. > > > > The license might vary over time, and it would be very bad to end up with > > improperly detected license in GitHub. > > > > Vladimir > > >
