The only thing that the ASF releases is source code, therefore the
policy you're quoting isn't relevant. There is no requirement to vote on
binary artifacts that are created from that source release. The
obligation on us is to verify that anything else the source release
creates follows ASF licensing like the source release does (e.g. our
JARs contain appropriate L&N files).
You are right about incubating in the filename though -- totally forgot
about that requirement. Let me roll an rc1 with that.
Thanks for catching that!
On 10/11/18 11:23 AM, Tsz Wo Sze wrote:
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 <els...@apache.org> 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 :)
