The .egg-info files are added to .gitignore of ours and we are using generally speaking `git archive` to build our archives - it will skip .gitignored files
On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:50 AM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > Generated files do not need to include licence information. If you are > using RAT to check licences, you can add .rat-excludes file to exclude > those from rat check. See https://creadur.apache.org/rat/. The future > Apache Trusted Release tool will check .rat-excludes at the top level of > your source .tar.gz and will use it automatically. > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 12:21 AM Stefan Krawczyk < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > source release which is required must have 'incubating' in the name. >> >> ✅ >> >> Question: we will likely evolve the other packages differently. So I'm >> planning on including subdirectories for the other packages to distinguish >> things. I assume that's okay. I see pekka does that. >> >> If you want to also release an sf-hamilton - then you can have 2 tar gz >> > files. >> >> ✅ actually will add a third, a wheel -- since airflow-core also does this. >> >> The LICENSE in the sf-hamilton file appears wrong. It mentions >> > contrib/hamilton/contrib/user/skrawcz/customize_embeddings/__init__.py >> > but I can't find that file in the tar.gz. >> >> ✅ Moving to LICENSE in `contrib` package. We'll release that package >> later. >> >> I would also recommend that the directory inside the tar.gz omits the >> > rc0 bit. You can't modify the file after the release vote so you won't >> > be able to remove the rc0 bit when you do release. >> >> ✅ corrected >> >> >> ./CONTRIBUTING.md >> > >> ✅Removed >> >> > ./MANIFEST.in >> > >> ✅Updated >> ./PKG-INFO >> ✅ this is autogenerated by the build process -- airflow-core does not >> have >> the header on this file. >> >> > ./README.md >> > >> ✅Removed >> >> > ./pyproject.toml >> > >> ✅Updated >> >> > ./rat.txt >> > >> ❓ I don't have this? >> >> > ./setup.cfg >> > >> This is autogenerated via the build process (python -m build --sdist). I >> can post-process to remove it / add a header manually. Not sure what >> airflow-core does because they don't include this file. >> >> >> > ./hamilton/experimental/databackend.py (this is ok because it is >> > mentioned in the LICENSE file) >> >> Not touching. >> >> ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/PKG-INFO >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/SOURCES.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/dependency_links.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/entry_points.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/requires.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/top_level.txt >> >> ❓ These are all generated as part of the source distribution process >> (python -m build --sdist). It's metadata that some python tools use IIUC >> (but, Airflow core does not have this). Not sure whether they do some post >> processing to remove it. *I'm guessing that we should too?* >> >> Will put up RC1 in a few days. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Stefan >> >> On Sun, Sep 14, 2025 at 10:38 AM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > These files are missing Apache License headers. >> > >> > ./CONTRIBUTING.md >> > ./MANIFEST.in >> > ./PKG-INFO >> > ./README.md >> > ./pyproject.toml >> > ./rat.txt >> > ./setup.cfg >> > ./hamilton/experimental/databackend.py (this is ok because it is >> > mentioned in the LICENSE file) >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/PKG-INFO >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/SOURCES.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/dependency_links.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/entry_points.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/requires.txt >> > ./sf_hamilton.egg-info/top_level.txt >> > >> > On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 18:35, PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > The LICENSE in the sf-hamilton file appears wrong. It mentions >> > > contrib/hamilton/contrib/user/skrawcz/customize_embeddings/__init__.py >> > > but I can't find that file in the tar.gz. >> > > >> > > I would also recommend that the directory inside the tar.gz omits the >> > > rc0 bit. You can't modify the file after the release vote so you won't >> > > be able to remove the rc0 bit when you do release. >> > > >> > > The next vote should be for rc1. And if that fails, rc2, etc. >> > > I would recommend that the next release starts with rc1. This is more >> > > usual for ASF release votes. >> > > >> > > On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 18:28, PJ Fanning <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > The rule about incubating in the name is at: >> > > > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html >> > > > >> > > > <snip> >> > > > Here is a minimal set of requirements, when using the work in >> progress >> > > > disclaimer, a podlings release must abide by: >> > > > >> > > > Include the word incubating in the release file name. >> > > > >> > > > Include an ASF LICENSE and NOTICE file. >> > > > >> > > > Have valid checksums or signatures. >> > > > >> > > > Be placed in the correct place on the ASF’s infrastructure. >> > > > >> > > > Have a KEYS file to validate the release. >> > > > >> > > > Other issues, such as: >> > > > >> > > > Missing ASF headers. >> > > > >> > > > Missing license information. >> > > > >> > > > Included unexpected binary code. >> > > > >> > > > Including code of unknown origin. >> > > > </snip> >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 18:25, PJ Fanning <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > I'm not sure what process is being followed. Many podlings have a >> > > > > document describing the release process that they follow. >> > > > > I want to highlight one important item for podlings. The release >> must >> > > > > be approved by a vote in the podling mailing list. Requires at >> least >> > > > > 72 hours of voting and a min of 3 +1s from PPMC members. But you >> also >> > > > > need a 2nd vote after this on the Incubator general mailing list >> > where >> > > > > the IPMC members vote separately. Requires at least 72 hours of >> > voting >> > > > > and a min of 3 +1s from IPMC members. >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 18:19, PJ Fanning <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > The source release which is required must have 'incubating' in >> the >> > name. >> > > > > > If you want to also release an sf-hamilton - then you can have 2 >> > tar gz files. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Here is an actual vote thread to look at. >> > > > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/b14519zt9v2s9gvpg6jo0wzhblo7drhx >> > > > > > >> > > > > > It has a description of the voting rules and the checks that are >> > > > > > required (or suggested) for voters to perform. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, 14 Sept 2025 at 18:16, PJ Fanning <[email protected] >> > >> > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Votes for releases are usually proceeded by discussion >> threads. >> > > > > > > I would suggest that you look at other podling mailing lists >> to >> > see how podlings are administered. >> > > > > > > List of podlings >> > > > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/clutch/ >> > > > > > > Mailing list reading >> > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/ >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 2025/09/14 16:38:18 Stefan Krawczyk wrote: >> > > > > > > > Okay I think I find one issue. So -1. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > The code literally has RC in version.py. if we just >> literally >> > move this >> > > > > > > > source to releases then this won't fly. I'll need to change >> > this. Please >> > > > > > > > continue to verify. I am assuming there might be one or two >> > more things to >> > > > > > > > correct. Will create another RC candidate and vote after >> this >> > one >> > > > > > > > concludes. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 13, 2025, 10:26 PM Stefan Krawczyk < >> > [email protected]> >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi all, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This is a call for a vote on releasing Apache hamilton >> > 1.89.0-incubating, >> > > > > > > > > release candidate 0. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This release includes the following changes: >> > > > > > > > > - Too many to list. Will build tooling to help automate >> this. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The artifacts for this release candidate can be found at: >> > > > > > > > > >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hamilton/1.89.0-RC0 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The Git tag to be voted upon is: >> > > > > > > > > v1.89.0 (based off of this PR >> > > > > > > > > <https://github.com/apache/hamilton/pull/1378>) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The release hash (can use git tag) will be provided once >> we >> > merge a commit >> > > > > > > > > with version 1.89.0 to main. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > 25E1C6FA3B71D486DC46BD3630C8F2B2CC329C0B >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The KEYS file is available at: >> > > > > > > > > https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/hamilton/KEYS >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Please download, verify, and test the release candidate. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The vote will run for a minimum of 72 hours. >> > > > > > > > > Please vote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache hamilton >> > 1.89.0-incubating >> > > > > > > > > [ ] +0 No opinion >> > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... (Please >> > provide a reason) >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On behalf of the Apache Hamilton PPMC, >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Stefan Krawczyk >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > P.S. @Mentors with our project, we literally commit the >> > version into the >> > > > > > > > > source code. This means that we will build releases off of >> > branches and >> > > > > > > > > then if all good merge into main. Is that kosher? or not? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> >
