(pulling this out the vote thread to avoid confusion)
No problem, Anu. Happy to push a SNAPSHOT build of Ratis.
On 10/11/18 2:56 PM, Anu Engineer wrote:
Would it be possible to do a full Ratis snap-shot release? So, we can just
consume all the changes with a single update on ozone side.
Sorry, I am just being a little selfish here, but it makes ozone’s life little
easier. Otherwise we will have to follow up with another release.
--Anu
On 10/11/18, 11:44 AM, "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Anu,
No need for me to wait around. This is just for the new thirdparty repo
-- not a release of ratis itself :)
On 10/11/18 2:31 PM, Anu Engineer wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> Can you please include Ratis-348?, it fixes a critical issue for Ozone.
You might have to wait until the end of day to roll the build.
>
> Thanks
> Anu
>
>
> On 10/11/18, 11:26 AM, "Josh Elser" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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 <[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 :)
>
>
>
