On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending > your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: > 1) In the binary bundle: > a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file > in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. > b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file > c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled > with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. > 2) In the source bundle: > a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src > bundle Yes. > b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not > reflected in git: > - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so > should not be included in our git repo) OK > - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. > - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked > into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license. > - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a > README file is included instead. The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation should be included. > For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to > git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution? Not sure what you are proposing. The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle agrees with the tag. Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released under the Apache License. > Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle? > Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we > need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change? See above. > FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next > release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well). > Thanks, > James > > [1] > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > >> James, Mujtaba, et. al., >> >> Can we add a "Releasing" page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that >> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can >> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This >> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process >> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving >> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary >> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the >> tarballs, etc. >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. >> > > >> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this >> > require >> > > a new RC? >> > >> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error. >> > >> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE >> > file. >> > >> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree >> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in >> > that regard. >> > >> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to >> > the source code control system. >> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> [...] >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be >> found >> > >> at: >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ >> > >> >> >> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and >> no >> > >> >> Rat.txt files. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Where are those? >> > >> >> > >> In the source bundle. >> > >> >> > >> > $ wget >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz >> > >> >> > >> That's the binary bundle. >> > >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> >> - Andy >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> (via Tom White) >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
