snleee commented on a change in pull request #3772: Update pom files for preparing Apache release URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-pinot/pull/3772#discussion_r253258271
########## File path: pinot-distribution/pinot-source-assembly.xml ########## @@ -0,0 +1,47 @@ +<!-- + + Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + distributed with this work for additional information + regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + software distributed under the License is distributed on an + "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + specific language governing permissions and limitations + under the License. + +--> +<assembly + xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/assembly/1.1.2"; + xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; + xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/assembly/1.1.2 http://maven.apache.org/xsd/assembly-1.1.2.xsd";> + <id>source-release</id> + <formats> + <format>tar.gz</format> + </formats> Review comment: I actually considered that. However, that will cause the issue when people try to build the binary tarbell from the released source code since the source release won't contain `-binary` files. Spark seemed to have the same issue and their decision is to remove `-binary` files from the source release. Side effect is that people cannot build a completely valid binary release from the released source code. https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/22840 On the other hand, I checked that Apache Flink is using similar approach as Spark (dividing LICENSE vs LICENSE-binary) and they include `-binary` files to their source code. You can check it from https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/flink/flink-1.7.1/flink-1.7.1-src.tgz I would prefer the latter since it allows our users to build a valid binary tarbell (with correct LICENSE, NOTICE). @felixcheung How do you think? ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] With regards, Apache Git Services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
