> Would it be possible to do a full Ratis snap-shot release? ... Anu, there is no different in Ozone after the Ratis thridparty change. We may deploy Ratis snapshots as before. Let me do it now if it has not been done.
Tsz-Wo On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:26 AM Tsz Wo Sze <szets...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The only thing that the ASF releases is source code, therefore the policy > > you're quoting isn't relevant. ... > > I might be wrong -- it seems that we may either have a source-only release or > have a source with binary release. It the latter, we also need to vote for > the binary. Anyway, we need to go thought IPMC. They should be able to > answer this question. > > Thanks. > Tsz-Wo > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:56 AM Anu Engineer <aengin...@hortonworks.com> > 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" <els...@apache.org> 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" <els...@apache.org> 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 > > <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 :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
