Oh, cool. Sounds like a good policy. Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney
On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > To be clear, we can still push out the tarball with jars in it as we do > today. That is just not the official "release". The only change end users > should see is there will be one more source only tarball on our release site. > > Alan. > > On Oct 26, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Russell Jurney wrote: > >> We need to be aggressive about mentioning the ant step to users all >> over the docs, as they may have never built software before. >> >> Russell Jurney twitter.com/rjurney >> >> >> On Oct 26, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> >>> No blog posts, but a long and tortured email thread on incubator general: >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201203.mbox/%3CCAOFYJNY%3DEjVHrWVvAedR3OKwCv-BkTaCbEu0ufp7OZR_gpCTiA%40mail.gmail.com%3E >>> >>> In a nutshell the logic is: >>> >>> 1) Apache's legal constituting documents require this, I think mostly for >>> reason 2 below. >>> >>> 2) PMC members can't examine binaries. If I generate a binary and give it >>> to you to vote on, how do you know I haven't nefariously hidden a virus in >>> the binary? With source you can personally check everything and make sure >>> nothing evil has been done. The same applies to end users who pick up the >>> code. >>> >>> 3) Many Apache projects are repackaged by OS vendors, etc. (Redhat, and so >>> on). They prefer source releases because they want to reconfigure the >>> layout in their own way anyway. >>> >>> Alan. >>> >>> On Oct 26, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Jonathan Coveney wrote: >>> >>>> Alan, >>>> >>>> Are there any blog posts or whatnot explaining the logic behind this? >>>> >>>> Just curious >>>> Jon >>>> >>>> 2012/10/25 Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> >>>> >>>>> There's one other issue I believe we should resolve before we release >>>>> 0.11. As part of my work with the Incubator I've learned that official >>>>> Apache releases aren't supposed to have any binary code (including any >>>>> jars) in them. Due to some recent issues with projects in the incubator >>>>> this has become a hot topic and some Apache members/officers have become >>>>> keen on making sure projects are in compliance. Obviously Pig has been in >>>>> violation of this for a while now (oops). We are still free to provide >>>>> "convenience packages" that contain the binaries, but they cannot be what >>>>> we vote on or what we sign and release. >>>>> >>>>> What this practically means for us is we need a new ant target that just >>>>> tars up the source and we need to change the release procedures slightly >>>>> to >>>>> sign and checksum the resulting tarball. We would then post both the >>>>> source release and the "convenience package" which would be the same >>>>> release we have always done. >>>>> >>>>> All the changes for this can be done in build.xml and the build procedures >>>>> wiki and are thus quite low risk. I volunteer to do it. I believe we >>>>> should do this for this release to avoid any issues with Apache. >>>>> >>>>> Alan. >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 22, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Olga Natkovich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There are still 76 unresolved JIRAs more than half unassigned. Lets >>>>> clean this up by theend of this week. I propose we do the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> (1) Unlink all JIRAs for new features since we already branched so we >>>>> should not be taken on new work. If people feel strongly that some new >>>>> features still need to go in please bring it up. >>>>>> (2) For bug fixes, if people fill strongly that some of the unassigned >>>>> issues need to be addressed please take ownership. If you are unable to >>>>> solve them but still feel they are important, please, bring them up. >>>>>> (3) Owners of unresolved issues, please, take a look if you will have >>>>> time to solve them in the next 2 weeks. If not, lets move them to 12. If >>>>> you can't address them but feel they are important, please, bring it up. >>>>>> >>>>>> Lets make sure that all JIRAs that require changes to the documentation >>>>> have appropriate information in the release notes section so that we can >>>>> quickly compile release documentation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for you help! >>>>>> >>>>>> Olga >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> From: Alan Gates <ga...@hortonworks.com> >>>>>> To: dev@pig.apache.org >>>>>> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 11:55 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: Pig 0.11 >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point no one has taken on release documentation for 0.11. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 15, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Olga Natkovich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you talking about items 15 and 16 on the How To Release.Publish >>>>> page? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also, who is doing release documentation these days? I can help with >>>>> that as well. I would also be happy to roll the release if you guys need >>>>> help with that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olga >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>> From: Dmitriy Ryaboy <dvrya...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> To: "dev@pig.apache.org" <dev@pig.apache.org> >>>>>>> Cc: "dev@pig.apache.org" <dev@pig.apache.org> >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 5:59 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Pig 0.11 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Olga and welcome back! >>>>>>> I know there's some process for linking jiras to releases, but I'm not >>>>> sure what that is. If you could explain and maybe cover a portion of that >>>>> work, that'd be super helpful. And reviews, of course. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Olga Natkovich <onatkov...@yahoo.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dmitry, I would be happy to help with the release process. Want to get >>>>> back into this now that I am back at work. Let me know what you would like >>>>> me to do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Olga >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>> From: Dmitriy Ryaboy <dvrya...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> To: dev@pig.apache.org >>>>>>>> Cc: billgra...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:44 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Pig 0.11 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok I will branch 0.11 tomorrow morning unless someone objects. >>>>>>>> From then on, committers should be careful to commit bug fixes to both >>>>>>>> 0.11 branch and trunk; minor polish can go into the branch, but whole >>>>>>>> new features should not (we can discuss on the list if something is in >>>>>>>> the gray area). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales >>>>>>>> <g...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I added it as a dependency as it has already its own Jira. >>>>>>>>> I hope it is OK. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Gianmarco >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Bill Graham <billgra...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 for me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-2756 which tracks >>>>> a few >>>>>>>>>> documentation issues that should block Pig 0.11, but they can also >>>>> be done >>>>>>>>>> on the trunk and merged to the branch. Gianmarco, you can add a rank >>>>>>>>>> subtask there to serve as a reminder. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales < >>>>>>>>>> g...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We are missing some documentation on the RANK but I guess we could >>>>> add >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> to the branch and trunk in parallel. >>>>>>>>>>> All the patches I was keeping an eye on are in. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So +1 for me. >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Gianmarco >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Coveney < >>>>> jcove...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think all of the major patches are in, no? Now it's just bug >>>>> testing? >>>>>>>>>>>> Just wanted to touch base on where we are at with this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> *Note that I'm no longer using my Yahoo! email address. Please email >>>>> me at >>>>>>>>>> billgra...@gmail.com going forward.* >>>>> >>>>> >>> >
