AFAIK From ASF perspective the only important thing in the release is to release a buildable source tarball, the other stuff are to be considered 'convenience binaries'.
I lean toward doing a Maven style release: - multiple jars to Maven central (think about zookeeper-jute as an example) - source tarbal to Apache dist svn - binary server tarball to Apache dist svn - use the Maven release plugin if possible - use Apache parent pom suggest configuration (not mandatory but worth to have) Enrico Il gio 17 gen 2019, 12:47 Tamas Penzes <tam...@cloudera.com.invalid> ha scritto: > Hi Norbert, > > I'd be as close to other Apache projects as possible and I think HBase is a > good example. > They create two deliverables, one to run the app, and one to develop (the > Apache way). > > Since this part was copied from HBase's main pom (I did it) I'd like to > advertise that they have updated the parent's version number since then. > See here: https://github.com/apache/hbase/blob/master/pom.xml > It might worth to update to version 18 in ZooKeeper too. > > Regards, Tamaas > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:45 AM Norbert Kalmar > <nkal...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote: > > > Hi Devs! > > > > I uploaded the PR for the assembly. I tried to recreate the tarball ant > > does, as the initial statement was to recreate the tarball as much as > > possible. But maven has its own build mechanism, which works well with > > Apache release standards. > > > > As Enrico pointed out to me, Apache top-level pom (parent of ZooKeeper > top > > parent pom) has some plugins already configured, like gpg. I checked the > > pom ( > > https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/17/apache-17.pom > ) > > and it also has an assembly. I couldn't find the descriptor ( > > src/main/assemblies/source-release.xml ) so not sure what it does. > > > > But my main question is, what do You think, what should the maven release > > have as an output? > > Should we ditch the tarball ant produced (which, by the way, isn't > exactly > > what Apache defines as a release artifact) and go with the separate maven > > jar artifacts (uploaded to central repo) + buildable only-source package? > > > > Or also keep the tarball ant produced? (Directories have changed of > course > > in the tarball, so not 100% backward compatible). > > > > I know I said in the initial docs we will keep the tarball, but now that > we > > are in the finish line of the migration, I also lean towards doing the > > release tha "maven way" and just package up the buildable resource. > > > > What's your take on the topic? > > > > Thanks, > > Norbert > -- -- Enrico Olivelli
