> I don't see any value for that, tbh. ... I agree that no one is going to download and use the binary. However, it is an artifact which we can vote for. It seems ASF requires us to put this artifact in the distribution directory, which is a subdirectory of www.apache.org/dist/ according to http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#where-do-releases-go
BTW, just found the following from https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases - the release archive MUST contain the word "incubating" in the filename; and - the release archive MUST contain an Incubation disclaimer (as described in the previous section), clearly visible in the main documentation or README file. We don't have "incubating" in the rc0 filename and DISCLAIMER seems missing in the binary jars in https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheratis-1007/ I guess we need a rc1? Tsz-Wo On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:43 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the vote, Nicholas! > > On 10/10/18 10:43 PM, Tsz Wo Sze wrote: > > - untar and then "mvn install" does work for me. It won't work if we > > run a second "mvn install" without clean. "mvn install" works again > > after "mvn clean". It seems not a problem. > > Will have to investigate what's going on. > > > Questions: > > - Should we post a rc for the binary? > > I don't see any value for that, tbh. 99% of people are not going to know > this even exists and will get it via Maven. In another line of thinking, > the Maven repository I sent out "is" the binary release :) > > > - Now the project name becomes "Apache Ratis Thirdparty Parent" (and > > the gz file name) instead of "Apache Ratis Thirdparty". It is a > > little odd. How about using "Apache Ratis Thirdparty" for the root > > module and "Apache Ratis Thirdparty Shaded" for the sub-module? I am > > fine if we do the rename later. > > More than happy to revisit naming later on :). I wasn't able to come up > with a good name for our general Ratis dependencies module. "Apache > Ratis Thirdparty Shaded" is probably the forerunner, but I don't feel > like it's very descriptive. Need to think about that some more :)
