Hi Chris, Are you asking to name our release branch as branches/branch-3.1 (not 3.1.3) and create a tag/release-3.1.3? Regards, Mohammad
----- Original Message ----- From: Chris Douglas <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> Cc: Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:50 PM Subject: Re: Call for first Apache release of Oozie A common release management process creates branches for minor versions (x.y), then cuts patch releases from the heads of those branches (x.y.z). One can then use tags in subversion to uniquely identify the content of release candidates and released versions. So during a release vote for version 0.3.0: trunk/ branches/branch-0.1/ branches/branch-0.2/ branches/branch-0.3/ tags/release-0.1.0/ tags/release-0.1.1/ tags/release-0.1.2/ tags/release-0.2.0/ tags/release-0.3.0-RC0/ Unless there's a good reason/strong preference to deviate from this, prospective contributors (and the IPMC) will find it easier to track the project if it follows this standard format. There's no rule that says it has to be like this, but following the template prevents the asking of pedantic questions. -C On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> wrote: > As per discussion in another thread, we decided to change the release version > as 3.1.3. > > The new branch is created accordingly: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/oozie/branches/branch-3.1.3/ > > > Regards, > Mohammad > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Cc: > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:45 PM > Subject: Re: Call for first Apache release of Oozie > > Thanks Chris for your comments. > I believe those two jars are for pipe testing that were created from C++ > code.|We already have a built-in mvn plugin to create the RAT report.We will > evaluate the output too. > > Regards, > Mohammad > > > ________________________________ > From: Chris Douglas <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 4:26 PM > Subject: Re: Call for first Apache release of Oozie > > Great news! > > Once the community is satisfied with the state of the artifact, we'll > need to go over any packaged dependencies to make sure the licensing > is in order. The following is a good resource: > > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > However, scanning the Oozie source, I didn't find any binary artifacts, save: > > ./core/src/test/resources/wordcount-simple_Linux-amd64-64_h20: ELF > 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked > (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.4.0, not stripped > ./core/src/test/resources/wordcount-simple_Linux-i386-32_h20: ELF > 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically > linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, not stripped > ./core/src/test/resources/wordcount-simple_Mac_OS_X-x86_64-64_h20: > Mach-O executable i386 > > Other than these, it looks like the licensing/redistribution will be > dead simple as long as it's a source release. Where do these come > from? > > We'll also want to run RAT over the release tarball: > http://incubator.apache.org/rat > > This should be enough to get started: > > http://apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain > > -C > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Mohammad Islam <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> I would like to start the process of releasing Oozie 3.1 (QE-certified and >> currently used at Yahoo production). >> >> 3.1 branch is already created. >> >> Please don't commit anything until further email. >> >> I will let know during the first release process. >> >> Since this will be our first release at Apache, we expect to learn a lot of >> new thing. Please bear with us. >> >> Regards, >> Mohammad >
