Yes, if that's acceptable, then I can go that route. I can allow the artifacts to be generated and pushed to Nexus, I can remove the binary artifacts, fix the L&N files, rehash/sign, and upload. Then, I can close the repo (which will run through all signing verifications) and provide the URL for voting. Once we get the submodules in place, the L&N file placement will be taken care of automatically for binary artifacts and the manual intervention won't be necessary.
Would it be OK to go ahead and merge the PR with the binary L&N files in the bin-license-notice dir in META-INF? That way, folks can be responsible for keeping them updated as they add any new dependencies. On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20 August 2016 at 16:23, Ellison Anne Williams < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thanks Tim - yes, I've been following that thread with interest. To speak > > to the documentation for Pirk releases, I have been working on a page for > > the website documenting our release process (and the gotchas) > step-by-step. > > Once we complete a successful release vote internally, I will put forth > the > > page for comment. I agree with the discussion on the general@incubator > > thread that the release process for a project needs to be documented such > > that anyone can walk into the project and complete a release - it > shouldn't > > be a mystical endeavor. > > > I don't know precisely what steps you are following at the moment, but if > there is an opportunity to manually intervene and fix-up the binary JAR > licenses before the artefacts are hashed / signed / uploaded then that > could simply be a "documented step" until the scripts handle it all. > > ... or even produce the JAR, then > - delete the exe-jar's sig/hash > - rearrange the L&N files > - re-sign/hash > > Provided it is a repeatable process for the binaries, I think that would be > ok. > > WDYT? > > Regards, > Tim > > > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > On 20 August 2016 at 04:52, Ellison Anne Williams < > > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > After spending a bit of time taking a look at the submodule > breakout, I > > > > would rather wait and break the project out into submodules in a more > > > > deliberate manner (not as a first pass just for the binary > artifacts). > > > > > > > > As submodules seem to be required to get the L&N files for binary > > > > distributions up to par, I propose that we proceed with a source only > > > > release now. We will slate the submodules for our next release (or > so). > > > > > > > > We've certainly learned tons about the release process over the last > > week > > > > and I think that it would be good to go ahead and exercise the full > > > process > > > > to completion. > > > > > > > > Unless anyone objects, I will try to get the source release artifacts > > up > > > > for voting over the weekend. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Thanks for your continued focus on this Ellison Anne. > > > > > > FYI there is a discussion underway on [email protected] that is > > > relevant to this thread... > > > > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator- > general/201608.mbox/% > > > 3C5113b38e-e52b-0c16-eced-903e00fc4477%40apache.org%3E > > > > > > I mention it as I expect the Incubator PMC are likely to assess Pirk's > > > release by this criteria, given it will be fresh in people's mind when > > our > > > vote is proposed. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Tim > > > > > >
