Thanks Matt that helps a lot. We anticipated delays in the first Apache release, hence the desire to get a non-Apache 0.9.0 release out to our community before that move (the community has been waiting for 0.9.0 for a long time).
We’ve already started/completed a number of items in the list. One issue that might be the biggest wrinkle has to do with the fact that some of Storm’s dependencies are forks of other projects. For example, if you look at the project file for storm-core [1] you will see a few dependencies with the “storm” groupId: 1. storm/libthrift7 — This is (AFAIK) a point-in-time fork of Apache Thrift. The only modification was to change the package names. Impetus behind this is discussed here [2]. The source repository *appears* to be here [3]. 2. backtype/jzmq — Looks like just a point-in-time fork. [4] 3. storm/carbonite [5] — Looks like the modifications here are just to pull in a different version [6] of kryo as a transient dependency. I can’t seem to find the source for the storm/kryo dependency. 4. storm/jgrapht — I can’t find the source for this. I believe it’s just a repackaging of the main jgrapht code [7]. We should be able to get 0.9.0 released out of github soon. We’re waiting on one final issue to be resolved [8]. It may make sense to make the first release from Apache with the 0.9.0 code with the above issues sorted out — essentially no code changes aside from license headers, dependency updates, etc. For the Thrift dependency, we might be able to use jarjar [9] to simply repackage an Apache release. I’m open to suggestions. - Taylor [1] https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/blob/master/storm-core/project.clj [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/storm-user/thrift$20cassandra/storm-user/evK3M--3QaI/CP2EQDLnxqkJ [3] https://github.com/nathanmarz/thrift-dev [4] https://github.com/nathanmarz/jzmq [5] https://github.com/nathanmarz/carbonite [6] https://github.com/nathanmarz/kryo [7] https://github.com/jgrapht/jgrapht [8] https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/pull/726 [9] https://code.google.com/p/jarjar/ On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:21 AM, Matt Franklin <[email protected]> wrote: > Glad to hear that we are going for the Apache release. Releasing at Apache > requires a bit more work than you are used to and it will take more time > than everyone would like for the first time. Good news is that I and the > other mentors are here to help you through the process. > > To get started we will need: > > 1) To make sure code is in the official apache git repo > 2) We have gone through the code and done LICENSE & NOTICE creations [1-2] > 3) We have asked INFRA to setup svn-pub-sub for our releases > 4) We have requested Nexus access for the PPMC members > 5) The release manager(s) have their release keys in the Apache web of > trust [3] > 6) We create release process documentation for the project [4-5] > > Here is some starting info that everyone should read: > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html > [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > [3] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing > [4] http://camel.apache.org/release-guide.html > [5] http://rave.apache.org/release-management.html > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Awesome. I'm looking forward to getting 0.9.0 out. >> >> BTW, I have a trivial pull request open (#759) that I'd like to merge, but >> it's not a big deal. >> >> - Taylor >> >>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Nathan Marz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I agree, it's time to release and get moving with completing the >> migration >>> to Apache. Once those issues are merged let's do a release. >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Bobby Evans <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have done a bit of CI work in apache for hadoop before and I still >> have >>>> power to set up new builds/etc on builds.apache.org, so I am happy to >>>> volunteer my services once the repository is migrated to apache. I am >> not >>>> sure how fancy we want to get with pre commit builds etc. a lot of that >>>> probably depends on how we plan on doing issue tracking/submitting pull >>>> requests. >>>> >>>> --Bobby >>>> >>>>> On 11/26/13 11:37 PM, "P. Taylor Goetz" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>> >>>>> I think one of the top priorities will be to work with Apache INFRA to >>>>> get some sort of CI environment set up. >>>>> >>>>> - Taylor >>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:19 AM, James Xu <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree it’s time to release and the unit test should pass before >>>>>> release. (I just released that we don’t have Travis CI like many other >>>>>> open source projects have). >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2013年11月27日, at 下午1:15, P. Taylor Goetz <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It’s been over two months since Storm has entered the Apache >> incubator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it’s time to release 0.9.0 and move forward with adopting the >>>>>>> Apache process for releasing, getting IP clearance, etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve not seen much feedback from the community on the release >>>>>>> candidates, but from what I’ve seen 0.9.0-rc3 is pretty solid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That being said, there are two remaining issues that I think should >> be >>>>>>> addressed: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/pull/726 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve not seen this reproduced, but I think it is valid and should be >>>>>>> addressed (see my comments in the pull request). I’m okay if we just >>>>>>> eliminate the possibility for negative sleep values for now. We can >>>>>>> change the implementation later to back off in a predictable way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. https://github.com/nathanmarz/storm/pull/755 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is arguably cosmetic, but I feel unit tests should pass for any >>>>>>> release. (I’d also like to change the release script so it fails if >> any >>>>>>> unit tests don’t pass ― I can create an issue for that, and take on >> the >>>>>>> work). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’m open to suggestions to any other pull requests/issues that anyone >>>>>>> feels should be included. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are any critical bugs discovered in 0.9.0, we can always >>>>>>> release a bug fix release (e.g. 0.9.0.x) outside of Apache. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In a nutshell, I think we need to decide whether we want to fish or >>>>>>> cut bait in terms of the move to Apache. I don’t want to see Storm >>>>>>> stagnate in the incubator. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I look forward to hearing others’ thoughts on the matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Taylor >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Twitter: @nathanmarz >>> http://nathanmarz.com >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
