+1 to what Alan says below which basically summarizes what I extrapolated
on.

Sorry I'm verbose :P

Cheers,
Chris


On 3/20/13 6:20 PM, "Alan Gates" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>On Mar 20, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Kevin Minder wrote:
>
>> So in trying to get ready to do a release I do really need help
>>figuring out a few things.  Clearly trying to figure it all out myself
>>is inappropriate.
>> 
>> 1. LICENSE and NOTICE - I think I know what to do but how do I know if
>>I'm right?  Will someone be auditing this?
>
>We'll definitely be auditing this, as one of the main functions of the
>incubator is to make sure you have your legal ducks in a row.
>
>> 2. Artifact signatures - No idea how this is typically done for a Java
>>project.  Any pointers?
>
>Take a look at HCatalog's wiki HowToRelease page,
>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HCATALOG/HowToRelease.  It
>covers how to do the digital signatures with pgp keys and md5 sums.
>These two are what usually used for the Apache projects I've been on.
>
>> 3. What else needs to be in place to initiate a release vote?
>
>Again, I refer you to HCatalog's HowToRelease page.  Obviously not every
>step on there will apply, but you'll get an idea for the steps involved
>(branching, voting, etc.)
>
>But before any of that the Knox community needs to decide it wants to
>release.  So step one is sending out an email that goes something like:
>
>I think we should do a release of Knox because [fill in your reasons for
>a release now].  I propose that we branch for the release [when].
>
>Generally speaking a particular release is driven by one person, often
>referred to as the release manager.  By sending the above mail you're
>basically volunteering to RM the proposed release.  It can be good to
>make that explicit in the mail.  Also if there are areas of the release
>you need help with it is good to call those out so others know how they
>can pitch in.
>
>Then assuming a few days go by and everyone is either supportive of the
>idea or at least not opposed, you can start working through the release
>process.
>
>Alan.
>> 
>> So basically I'm personally interested in starting the process of
>>releasing 0.2.0.  How knows how many RCs it will take.  Do we need to
>>vote on starting that?
>> 
>> On 3/20/13 6:53 PM, Kevin Minder wrote:
>>> Hi Everyone,
>>> Lets see, this is all just a symptom of me learning the ropes here and
>>>transitioning into the open development mode.  So let me address each
>>>point I believed was raised so that I get concrete feedback about how
>>>to improve and proceed.
>>> 
>>> 1. Snapshot upload
>>> 
>>> I certainly understand the "second class" citizen concern here and I
>>>was concerned about it myself.  At the time I thought my only option
>>>was a private email about the upload.  I thought that was worse that
>>>discussing it publically.  Ideally I would expect these type of
>>>frequent snapshot distributions to be built via CI.  We don't have that
>>>setup yet.  I will file a Jira for that but given the information I
>>>received in the general@incubator thread this seemed like it could take
>>>awhile.  In the meantime I like Alan's suggestion of uploading to
>>>apache.org/~kminder.  I'll do that and send another email.
>>> 
>>> 2. Release vote
>>> 
>>> We want to avoid co-development at all costs too but at the same time
>>>we still need to make progresss, name and cut "unofficial releases" to
>>>evaluate both at Hortonworks and also to court potential community
>>>members.  What should we be calling these to stay within the rules?  I
>>>specifically left the SNAPSHOT in everything as an attempt.  I expect
>>>that there is still significant work that needs to be done to create
>>>something that will pass legal for an official Apache release.  I have
>>>more work to do to understand exactly what needs to be in the LICENSE
>>>and NOTICE files at a minimum.  When that was done I was planning on
>>>asking about calling for a vote.
>>> 
>>> 3. v0.1.0 and v0.2.0-rc1
>>> 
>>> We had all of our history from the GitHub repository imported into the
>>>Apache Git repo where we have continued working.  Therefore there are
>>>existing tags for the v0.1.0 and v0.2.0-rc1 so I thought it made the
>>>most sense to continue on.  I do acknowledge in hindsight that this is
>>>something that should have been discussed.
>>> 
>>> 3. Co-development
>>> 
>>> There is no active private repository for this.  Everything is being
>>>committed to the Apache git repo at this point.  Larry and I in
>>>particular need to find the right balance between high bandwidth brain
>>>storming (e.g. face:face, IM, phone) and email discussions on dev@knox.
>>> 
>>> 4. Jira
>>> 
>>> Devarj filed INFRA-5922 on March 1st to have Jira setup.  I would much
>>>rather be using the Apache Jira so anything that can be done to speed
>>>that up would be appreciated.  I'll take the reference to the
>>>Hortonworks Jira out of the docs and I guess we will just have to keep
>>>track of any issues discovered in email.  I'll come up with some email
>>>subject convention (e.g. [BUG])
>>> 
>>> Continued feedback appreciated.
>>> Kevin.
>>> 
>>> On 3/20/13 5:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>> 
>>>> RE: #3, after looking at it in more detail, we need to remove
>>>>references
>>>> to internal Hortonworks JIRA's in our Apache documentation. I realize
>>>> Hortonworks
>>>> people have their own company systems, etc. Those should not be
>>>>confused
>>>> with their Apache (!Hortonworks) counterparts.
>>>> 
>>>> Do we have an Apache Knox JIRA? If not, I would be glad to request
>>>>one.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Chris
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/20/13 2:46 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm not sure what this email means, but I'm worried by its context.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are you suggesting that you have released a version of Apache Knox,
>>>>>with
>>>>> a version # 0.2.0?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If so, then I have the following statements/questions:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Apache releases are VOTEd on by the Apache Knox PPMC and by the
>>>>>Apache
>>>>> Incubator PMC
>>>>> (whose VOTEs are the binding ones in this process atm). Unless I
>>>>>missed
>>>>> it,
>>>>> I didn't see a VOTE thread, so I'm not sure how you released Apache
>>>>>Knox.
>>>>> See: http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>>>> Small note: where is RC1?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2. It looks like there is development occurring internally at
>>>>>Hortonworks
>>>>> here.
>>>>> Why? Co-developing wastes community resources. All of you guys here
>>>>>that
>>>>> are interested
>>>>> in the project should be developing here. Of course there are naming
>>>>> issues, etc.,
>>>>> associated with this, but more importantly there are community
>>>>>issues. So
>>>>> I request
>>>>> clarification on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 3. Great job on the documentation!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looking forward to the clarifications.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Chris
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/20/13 2:35 PM, "Kevin Minder" <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>> I decided to cut and share v0.2.0 RC2 of the gateway.  I tagged the
>>>>>>repo
>>>>>> with v0.2.0-rc2.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For those in Hortonworks I uploaded a ZIP here
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>https://docs.google.com/a/hortonworks.com/file/d/0BzcmnaxIHtiAZkxhQWZ
>>>>>>CQ21 
>>>>>> y
>>>>>> WTA/edit
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Everyone else should be able to create their own following these
>>>>>> instructions.
>>>>>> http://knox.incubator.apache.org/release-process.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Apache site is starting to come along.
>>>>>> http://knox.incubator.apache.org/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Of particular interest are the links in the Documentation section
>>>>>>of the
>>>>>> left Nav bar.
>>>>>> http://knox.incubator.apache.org/getting-started.html
>>>>>> http://knox.incubator.apache.org/examples.html
>>>>>> http://knox.incubator.apache.org/client.html
>>>>>> http://knox.incubator.apache.org/sandbox.html
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I wrote and reorganized a bunch of documentation over the last few
>>>>>>days
>>>>>> and I haven't "tested" all of it yet.  So there may need to be some
>>>>>> tweaks there and an RC3.  Functionally however the more eyes the
>>>>>>better
>>>>>> so give it a spin.  We are especially interested in feedback.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kevin.
>>> 
>> 
>

Reply via email to