The amount of work won’t be huge, because you’ve already done a lot of groundwork. But you may find the latency frustrating.
One idea to reduce latency is to produce a “dummy” release candidate that you know will fail the vote. You could do this right now, if you like. But you can check the signing and staging process, have people check the contents of the tar.gz, and so forth. It will generate a bunch of JIRA cases that you can fix for the second RC. Julian > On Sep 19, 2018, at 12:05 PM, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think we want this release to be seen by the user community as a 'real' > release, and in that case it seems best to satisfy both sets of > requirements at once. The legal requirements: confirming we have all our > ducks in a row Apache/IP-wise. And the community requirements: producing a > release that is at least as high quality as our users have become > accustomed to in the past, and follows past precedent for deciding what > goes in a release and what doesn't. If that means more work for us, then in > my view, so be it. We will strive to prepare something for the IPMC to take > a look at as soon as possible. I think it's doable on a relatively short > timeframe from now. > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:07 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org > <mailto:jh...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> An ASF release is fundamentally a legal transaction. Issuing a bunch of >> source code under a license, having made sure that the contributions to >> that source code are in order. There’s not a strict requirement that it >> works, or even compiles. >> >> Now obviously we, as diligent software engineers who are hoping to build a >> community, want to deliver something that is functional, well-documented >> and a delight to use. But those are all secondary to the purpose of >> launching a blob of intellectual property into the world. >> >> Be advised that the “issues” that the IPMC will find with your release >> will likely have nothing to do with code bugs, testing or documentation. >> So, you need to find a balance between the technical tasks and the other >> aspects of the release process. >> >> To your question. It makes a lot of sense to rename java packages before >> the release, for the benefit of Druid’s community. But it’s not an absolute >> requirement. >> >> Julian >> >> >>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 1:16 PM, Xavier Léauté <xav...@confluent.io> wrote: >>> >>> Julian, maybe the requirements for an ASF release aren't clear to >> everyone. >>> It seems we are trying to move all our artifacts to be under org.apache >> in >>> order to meet ASF requirements for a release. Doing so would imply a >> major >>> release for us since those changes wouldn't be backwards compatible. Are >>> you saying that we would be able to do a release without renaming >> artifacts? >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:42 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org >>> <mailto:jh...@apache.org> <mailto: >> jh...@apache.org>> wrote: >>> >>>> I’m probably guilty of not spending enough time reading through dev@ >>>> archives to find the plans. I hadn’t figured out that the first ASF >> release >>>> was going to be a major release (i.e. numbered 0.x) or that the release >>>> cadence for such releases is about every six months. Sorry about that. >>>> >>>> I saw this thread [1] but the end-of-September timescale isn’t explicit. >>>> >>>> It may be challenging if your first Apache release is also a major >> release >>>> (e.g. the two rounds of voting take a while, especially if each vote >> fails >>>> a couple of times). So, if you are planning say a beta release before a >>>> 0.13 then that might be a better first apache release. >>>> >>>> Julian >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e6a378201f7e7ab6da2493fe6ee4ae276768c461ea5c676a953d8139@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E >> >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e6a378201f7e7ab6da2493fe6ee4ae276768c461ea5c676a953d8139@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E> >>>> < >>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e6a378201f7e7ab6da2493fe6ee4ae276768c461ea5c676a953d8139@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E >> < >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e6a378201f7e7ab6da2493fe6ee4ae276768c461ea5c676a953d8139@%3Cdev.druid.apache.org%3E >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 17, 2018, at 12:19 PM, Gian Merlino <g...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Julian, >>>>> >>>>> I am surprised to read that you feel the project hasn't come up with a >>>> plan >>>>> for an Apache release yet. I feel like we do have a plan. I wonder if >>>> your >>>>> message means that our plan is no good, or just that it isn't clear. >>>>> >>>>> From my perspective, as a community, we have decided that our next >>>> release >>>>> from master (0.13) is going to be an Apache release. And we're treating >>>> it >>>>> the same way we've treated all our other from-master releases in the >> past >>>>> (0.10, 0.11, 0.12, etc). That is to say, we have tagged a set of issues >>>>> with the release number ( >>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/milestone/25) and we are >>>> working >>>>> to get that list down to zero so we can start doing RCs: either by >>>>> finishing the tasks or by punting them to future releases. We have some >>>>> extra Apache stuff in this release, and have an "Apache" label in >> github >>>>> that we've been tagging those issues and PRs with. Some relevant >> changes >>>>> include the following, >>>>> >>>>> 1) https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/5976 (Update license >>>>> headers.) >>>>> 2) https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/6266 (Rename >> io.druid >>>> to >>>>> org.apache.druid.) >>>>> 3) https://github.com/apache/incubator-druid/pull/6215 (Adding >> licenses >>>> and >>>>> enable apache-rat-plugin.) >>>>> >>>>> Based on the tempo so far, I am hoping that we will get this release >>>>> branched off and start doing RCs later in September. >>>>> >>>>> We haven't modified our NOTICE file yet, although I think we'll need >> to, >>>>> based on what I've seen on the Incubator site. If you have any advice >>>> about >>>>> what's the minimal set of tasks we should get done before starting to >>>>> generate and vote on RCs, that would be helpful towards getting it done >>>>> faster. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Druid has been in incubation for several months and has not yet >> produced >>>>>> an Apache release. There were initially some issues with IP transfer >>>> that >>>>>> prevented that release, but they are now solved. The release is >> becoming >>>>>> urgent, because the code is still not been released under the Apache >>>>>> license. Can the project please come up with a plan for that release? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have seen the following in other incubating projects. They want >> their >>>>>> first release to be a “major” release, and then they start asking >>>> product >>>>>> managers to dictate the content and timing of the release, and they >> ask >>>>>> their marketing people what they could do to make it a “big splash". >>>> Don’t >>>>>> do that. A release is nothing more than a snapshot of whatever is on >> the >>>>>> master branch. Releases must be driven by the community. >>>>>> >>>>>> The first Apache release is always more effort than it seems. My >> advice >>>> is >>>>>> to start as soon as possible, and make its goals as limited as >> possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Julian (wearing my “mentor” hat) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@druid.apache.org >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@druid.apache.org
