Thanks for bringing this up. If you have specific issues to share I would really appreciate it.
On 2021/02/16 16:39:41, Aaron Markham <aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some folks use the docs build to make offline docs. Really need to make > sure those build properly from the release once you make that change with > mxtheme. There were a variety of patches going on with the local version of > it...IIRC... None of the bugs were being addressed at the time in the > mxtheme package level so that's why it was brought in locally and modified. > I'm guessing a pip install might appear to work, but then you're probably > going to find some display problems in the python docs. The folks that > worked on the front end code for the website would likely recall these > issues. If you make the change for how the site is built now then at least > it will break for everyone and it can be addressed in a way that can deal > with these license issues. > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021, 1:41 AM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > +1 definitely a good idea to create consistent releases > > > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2021, 03:40 Chaitanya Bapat <chai.ba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > +1 for this automation proposal to make our releases Apache compliant! > > > Thanks Joe. > > > > > > Thanks sheng for patching the mxtheme piece! > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021, 6:33 PM Joe Evans <joseph.ev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi dev community, > > > > > > > > Currently, when MXNet creates a new release, we manually create the > > > source > > > > archives using commands in the release runbook here: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-Step1.10.Createartifactsforthereleaseandpushtothedistfolder > > > > > > > > Based on feedback from Apache, there are a few non-Apache 2.0 licenses > > > > files that we should not distribute in the source archives, or > > explicitly > > > > call them out in the LICENSE file. The following files were identified > > as > > > > non-AL2: > > > > > > > > 3rdparty/mkldnn/doc/assets/fonts/fontawesome-webfont* > > > > 3rdparty/mkldnn/doc/assets/fonts/lato* > > > > 3rdparty/mkldnn/doc/assets/mathjax/fonts/HTML-CSS/Asana-Math/otf* > > > > 3rdparty/mkldnn/doc/assets/mathjax/fonts/HTML-CSS/*/*/MathJax* > > > > > > > > > > > > > docs/python_docs/themes/mx-theme/mxtheme/static/material-design-icons-3.0.1/iconfont/* > > > > docs/python_docs/themes/mx-theme/mxtheme/static/webfonts/fa-solid* > > > > > > > > I believe we can simply remove the entire 3rdparty/mkldnn/doc/assets > > > > directory for mkldnn and not include it in our source archive. The > > > > mxtheme has already been removed from the source tree (and replaced by > > > > doing a pip install of the mx-theme package instead) by @szha. > > > > > > > > I propose we automate this step of the release runbook by creating a > > > script > > > > in the repo that checks out the passed tag, removes any problematic > > files > > > > that we can not distribute, and perform a apache-rat license check to > > > > ensure our source archive is compliant. Does anyone have any input or > > > > suggestions? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > >
