Re: [DISCUSS] Tar + Gzip vs. Zip

[James Wing]

It's a great idea, Andy, I strongly support just one format.  I think Zip
is a good choice.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:16 AM Otto Fowler 
wrote:

> I end up using zip all the time.  zip +1
>
>
> On June 26, 2018 at 13:30:33, Tony Kurc (tk...@apache.org) wrote:
>
> My preference is zip.
>
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Josh Elser  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/25/18 11:34 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
> > > However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
> > > believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
> > > generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
> > > binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz
> > > and .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs.
> > > 1_224_392_000 bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is
> > > substantial, but the true cost comes in uploading and hosting them.
> > > While the fabled extension registry will save all of us from this
> > > burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow, and I think we could drastically
> > > improve this before the next release.
> > >
> > > I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
> > > there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on
> > > all systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1]
> is
> > > an interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins,
> > > and here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I
> > > don’t care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for
> > > the build going forward (toolkit as well).
> > >
> > > That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I
> would
> > > love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy
> > > which stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any ASF policy. I think it mostly stems from default
> > convention you get out of the maven-assembly-plugin.
> >
> > > [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
> > > [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
> > > [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
> > > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy LoPresto
> > > alopre...@apache.org 
> > > /alopresto.apa...@gmail.com /
> > > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> > >
> >
>

Re: Help: I want to be a contributor to NiFi, but encountered two problems

[Chris Herrera]

Hello,

You might want to start here:

https://community.hortonworks.com/articles/106931/nifi-debugging-tutorial.html

It gives a good overview of logging and also attaching a debugger from
IntelliJ idea.

Regards,
Chris

On June 26, 2018 at 9:34:51 PM, run_psw (run_...@aliyun.com.invalid) wrote:

> Hi
> I am a data develper from china , and i am new to NiFi. When I first
> experienced NiFi, It makes me especially excited. So I want to be a
> contributor. I was Reference the website that gave by NiFi <
> https://github.com/olegz/nifi-ide-integration/>. but it isn't work.and i
> can find where to modify the code. so i turn over to the source directly.
> and now i have two question
> 1> where can i find the debug entry
> 2> can someone give me a more detailed tutorial
>
> i use win10 + idea
>

Help: I want to be a contributor to NiFi, but encountered two problems

[run_psw]

Hi 
I am a data develper from china , and i am new to NiFi. When I first 
experienced NiFi, It makes me especially excited. So I want to be a 
contributor. I was Reference the website that gave by NiFi 
. but it isn't work.and i can 
find where to modify the code. so i turn over to the source directly. and now i 
have two question
1> where can i find the debug entry
2> can someone give me a more detailed tutorial

i use win10 + idea

[ANNOUNCE] Apache NiFi 1.7.0 release

[Andy LoPresto]

Hello

The Apache NiFi team would like to announce the release of Apache NiFi 1.7.0.

Apache NiFi is an easy to use, powerful, and reliable system to process and 
distribute
data.  Apache NiFi was made for dataflow.  It supports highly configurable 
directed graphs
of data routing, transformation, and system mediation logic.

More details on Apache NiFi can be found here:
https://nifi.apache.org/

The release artifacts can be downloaded from here:
https://nifi.apache.org/download.html

Maven artifacts have been made available here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/nifi/

Issues closed/resolved for this list can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12342979=12316020
 


Release note highlights can be found here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version1.7.0

Thank you
The Apache NiFi team


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

[VOTE] Release Apache NiFi MiNiFi 0.5.0

[Jeremy Dyer]

Hello,

I am pleased to call this vote for the source release of Apache NiFi MiNiFi
minifi-0.5.0.

The source zip, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
*https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachenifi-1129/
*

The Git tag is nifi-minifi-0.5.0-RC1
The Git commit ID is f5c15eb6e501bce02e90c48b506a997dbda14746
*https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=nifi-minifi.git;a=commit;h=f5c15eb6e501bce02e90c48b506a997dbda14746
*

*https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi/commit/f5c15eb6e501bce02e90c48b506a997dbda14746
*
Checksums of minifi-0.5.0-source-release.zip:
SHA1: da83318f2a606345d6b33aa4f89c9c2689dcf390
SHA256: 8b47d7085ed31b2c2e412375caafb80d988afeb2b0d65459b4a9eb49d05942b7

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/jeremydyer.asc

KEYS file available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/nifi/KEYS

16 issues were closed/resolved for this release:
*https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319921=12342658
*

Release note highlights can be found here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MINIFI/
Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Version0.5.0

The vote will be open until 5:00PM EDT, 29 June 2018.

Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary items
including checking hashes, signatures, build
from source, and test.  Then please vote:

[ ] +1 Release this package as minifi-0.4.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Thanks!

Re: NiFi (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Brandon DeVries]

Justin,

The 4.x version you're referencing is specific to the organization you work
for.  I would direct questions specific to this version to your
organization's internal chatrooms / DLs.  If you need further guidance,
please let me know.

Brandon

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 3:49 PM Cetron, Justin F CTR USARMY CECOM (US) <
justin.f.cetron@mail.mil> wrote:

> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> I had a question in regards to NiFi. I recently have been tasked with
> upgrading the NiFi we run, however, in looking at the versions I have vs.
> what I have seen on the nifi.apache.org site, are there two different
> versions of the software? As what I was handed is 3 full generations higher
> (4.x) than the 1.7 I see on the normal site. Thank you very much.
>
>
> Justin Cetron - Systems Administrator III
> Office: (443) 861-4215
>
> CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED
>

NiFi (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Cetron, Justin F CTR USARMY CECOM (US)]

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Good Afternoon,

I had a question in regards to NiFi. I recently have been tasked with upgrading 
the NiFi we run, however, in looking at the versions I have vs. what I have 
seen on the nifi.apache.org site, are there two different versions of the 
software? As what I was handed is 3 full generations higher (4.x) than the 1.7 
I see on the normal site. Thank you very much.


Justin Cetron - Systems Administrator III   
Office: (443) 861-4215

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

Re: [DISCUSS] Tar + Gzip vs. Zip

[Otto Fowler]

I end up using zip all the time.  zip +1


On June 26, 2018 at 13:30:33, Tony Kurc (tk...@apache.org) wrote:

My preference is zip.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Josh Elser  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/25/18 11:34 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
> > However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
> > believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
> > generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
> > binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz
> > and .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs.
> > 1_224_392_000 bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is
> > substantial, but the true cost comes in uploading and hosting them.
> > While the fabled extension registry will save all of us from this
> > burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow, and I think we could drastically
> > improve this before the next release.
> >
> > I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
> > there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on
> > all systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1]
is
> > an interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins,
> > and here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I
> > don’t care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for
> > the build going forward (toolkit as well).
> >
> > That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I
would
> > love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy
> > which stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
>
> I'm not aware of any ASF policy. I think it mostly stems from default
> convention you get out of the maven-assembly-plugin.
>
> > [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
> > [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
> > [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
> > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
> >
> >
> > Andy LoPresto
> > alopre...@apache.org 
> > /alopresto.apa...@gmail.com /
> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4 BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Tar + Gzip vs. Zip

[Tony Kurc]

My preference is zip.

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018, 9:21 AM Josh Elser  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/25/18 11:34 PM, Andy LoPresto wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
> > However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
> > believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
> > generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
> > binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz
> > and .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs.
> > 1_224_392_000 bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is
> > substantial, but the true cost comes in uploading and hosting them.
> > While the fabled extension registry will save all of us from this
> > burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow, and I think we could drastically
> > improve this before the next release.
> >
> > I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
> > there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on
> > all systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1] is
> > an interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins,
> > and here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I
> > don’t care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for
> > the build going forward (toolkit as well).
> >
> > That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I would
> > love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy
> > which stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
>
> I'm not aware of any ASF policy. I think it mostly stems from default
> convention you get out of the maven-assembly-plugin.
>
> > [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
> > [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
> > [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
> > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
> >
> >
> > Andy LoPresto
> > alopre...@apache.org 
> > /alopresto.apa...@gmail.com /
> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> >
>

[PROPOSAL] Reference Utility Script to help automate some of RC validation in Release Process

[Otto Fowler]

I would like to propose the the Release Process
, specifically the section:

*RM sends the following helper email to the NiFi Developers Mailing List*

be changed to include a link to, as well as a description of valid use of
the script referenced in PR 2806 .
This would be done as opposed to having the script in the NiFi source tree.

This script has been added to the NiFi wiki’s Releasing Nifi Page
 in the
scripts to help release nifi section.

The proposed change to the helper guide email:

Hello Apache NiFi community,

Please find the associated guidance to help those interested in
validating/verifying the release so they can vote.

# Download latest KEYS file:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/KEYS

# Import keys file:
gpg --import KEYS

# [optional] Clear out local maven artifact repository

# Pull down nifi-${NIFI_VERSION} source release artifacts for review:

wget 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip
wget 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip.asc
wget 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip.sha1
wget 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip.sha256
wget 
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}/nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip.sha512

# Verify the signature
gpg --verify nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip.asc

# Verify the hashes (sha1, sha256, sha512) match the source and what
was provided in the vote email thread
shasum -a 1 nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip
shasum -a 256 nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip
shasum -a 512 nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip

# Unzip nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}-source-release.zip

# Verify the build works including release audit tool (RAT) checks
cd nifi-${NIFI_VERSION}
mvn clean install -Pcontrib-check,include-grpc

# Verify the contents contain a good README, NOTICE, and LICENSE.

# Verify the git commit ID is correct

# Verify the RC was branched off the correct git commit ID

# Look at the resulting convenience binary as found in nifi-assembly/target

# Make sure the README, NOTICE, and LICENSE are present and correct

# Run the resulting convenience binary and make sure it works as expected

# Send a response to the vote thread indicating a +1, 0, -1 based on
your findings.

A script automating some of this process is available at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NIFI/Releasing+NiFi as
release candidate check script.
While this script automates some of the steps above, it is not
replacement for all the checks above.


Thank you for your time and effort to validate the release!

Joe Witt’s original recommendation in PR 2806
.

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache NiFi MiNiFi 0.5.0

[Jeremy Dyer]

Ok sure thing I will review those now. I will let you know if I find
anything. If not I'll merge them into master and kick off the release
process.

Thanks,
Jeremy Dyer

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Aldrin Piri  wrote:

> Yeah, I believe we are down to just two issues listed here to be reviewed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-459?jql=
> project%20%3D%20MINIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%
> 22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22)%20AND%
> 20fixVersion%20%3D%200.5.0
>
> Otherwise, it looks like the pending items have been taken care of and we
> can move forward.
>
> Thanks for taking on the RM duties!
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:21 PM Jeremy Dyer  wrote:
>
> > Aldrin - Yep I'm happy to play the role of RM for this release. Now that
> > NiFi 1.7.0 has been released seems like the only remaining tasks are to
> > update the dependencies. Let me know if you want any help with that as
> well.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeremy Dyer
> >
> > Thanks - Jeremy Dyer
> > 
> > From: Kevin Doran 
> > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:04:26 PM
> > To: dev@nifi.apache.org; dev@nifi.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache NiFi MiNiFi 0.5.0
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sounds good to me. Thanks, Aldrin.
> >
> >
> >
> > Get Outlook for iOS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 3:04 PM -0400, "Andy LoPresto" <
> > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +1, excited to get the new stuff into MiNiFi.
> >
> > Andy LoPresto
> > alopre...@apache.org
> > alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> >
> > > On Jun 22, 2018, at 19:03, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello folks,
> > >
> > > With the NiFi vote under way, I was thinking it was an appropriate time
> > to
> > > start discussion around the release of 0.5.0.  There have been some
> > > important fixes as well as some initial support for integration with
> > > Registry.  I think we should get MiNiFi upgraded to 1.7.0 dependencies
> > when
> > > that release successfully completes and start the release process.
> > >
> > > It seems Jeremy already made a ticket to do so.  Jeremy, are you
> > > volunteering to RM?  If not, I am happy to do so if no one else has any
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Aldrin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache NiFi MiNiFi 0.5.0

[Aldrin Piri]

Yeah, I believe we are down to just two issues listed here to be reviewed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFI-459?jql=project%20%3D%20MINIFI%20AND%20status%20in%20(Open%2C%20%22In%20Progress%22%2C%20Reopened%2C%20%22Patch%20Available%22)%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%200.5.0

Otherwise, it looks like the pending items have been taken care of and we
can move forward.

Thanks for taking on the RM duties!

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 10:21 PM Jeremy Dyer  wrote:

> Aldrin - Yep I'm happy to play the role of RM for this release. Now that
> NiFi 1.7.0 has been released seems like the only remaining tasks are to
> update the dependencies. Let me know if you want any help with that as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeremy Dyer
>
> Thanks - Jeremy Dyer
> 
> From: Kevin Doran 
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2018 11:04:26 PM
> To: dev@nifi.apache.org; dev@nifi.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache NiFi MiNiFi 0.5.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sounds good to me. Thanks, Aldrin.
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 3:04 PM -0400, "Andy LoPresto" <
> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> +1, excited to get the new stuff into MiNiFi.
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> alopresto.apa...@gmail.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
> > On Jun 22, 2018, at 19:03, Aldrin Piri  wrote:
> >
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > With the NiFi vote under way, I was thinking it was an appropriate time
> to
> > start discussion around the release of 0.5.0.  There have been some
> > important fixes as well as some initial support for integration with
> > Registry.  I think we should get MiNiFi upgraded to 1.7.0 dependencies
> when
> > that release successfully completes and start the release process.
> >
> > It seems Jeremy already made a ticket to do so.  Jeremy, are you
> > volunteering to RM?  If not, I am happy to do so if no one else has any
> > interest.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Aldrin
>
>
>
>
>
>

Preliminary work on SCP and SSH processors

[Peter Wicks (pwicks)]

I’ve been working on NIFI-539 and NIFI-3698, adding support for SSH based 
processors like SCP and an Execute SSH.

I’ve submitted a PR, but it definitely needs some work still. Would appreciate 
some feedback on the approaches. Unlike most of my code changes, this one 
should be easy for most people to try out (no MS SQL ).

https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/2814

Re: [DISCUSS] Tar + Gzip vs. Zip

[Jeff Zemerick]

As a user I always download the zip file. Echoing Mike's reply, I work
across Linux, Windows, and OSX and my mouse always goes toward the zip.
I've never run into any file permission/attribute issues with the zip
distribution. Everything that should be executable always has been. So if
you axed one, my non-binding, FWIW vote would be to keep zip. :)

Jeff


On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 5:28 AM Mike Thomsen  wrote:

> I would lean toward Zip because it is the format that is supported by
> Windows, macOS and Linux out of the box. I think the ease of use for
> Windows users is particularly important.
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:34 PM Andy LoPresto 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
> > However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
> > believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
> > generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
> > binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz and
> > .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs. 1_224_392_000
> > bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is substantial, but the
> > true cost comes in uploading and hosting them. While the fabled extension
> > registry will save all of us from this burden, it isn’t arriving
> tomorrow,
> > and I think we could drastically improve this before the next release.
> >
> > I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
> > there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on
> all
> > systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1] is an
> > interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins, and
> > here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I don’t
> > care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for the
> build
> > going forward (toolkit as well).
> >
> > That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I would
> > love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy
> which
> > stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
> >
> > [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
> > [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
> > [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
> > [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
> >
> >
> > Andy LoPresto
> > alopre...@apache.org
> > *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
> > PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Tar + Gzip vs. Zip

[Mike Thomsen]

I would lean toward Zip because it is the format that is supported by
Windows, macOS and Linux out of the box. I think the ease of use for
Windows users is particularly important.

On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 11:34 PM Andy LoPresto  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> I do not want to start a long-running argument or entrenched battle.
> However, having just performed the RM duties for the latest release, I
> believe I have identified a resource inefficiency in the fact that we
> generate, upload, host, and distribute two compressed archives of the
> binary which are functionally equivalent. For 1.7.0, both the .tar.gz and
> .zip files are 1.2 GB (1_224_352_000 bytes for tar.gz vs. 1_224_392_000
> bytes for zip). The time to build and sign these is substantial, but the
> true cost comes in uploading and hosting them. While the fabled extension
> registry will save all of us from this burden, it isn’t arriving tomorrow,
> and I think we could drastically improve this before the next release.
>
> I have no personal preference between the two formats. In earlier days,
> there were platform inconsistencies and the tools weren’t available on all
> systems, but now they are pretty standard for all users. This [1] is an
> interesting article I found which had some good info on the origins, and
> here are some additional resources for anyone interested [2][3]. I don’t
> care which we pick, but I propose removing one of the options for the build
> going forward (toolkit as well).
>
> That said, if someone has a good reason that both are necessary, I would
> love to hear it. I didn’t find anything on the Apache Release Policy which
> stated we must offer both, but maybe I missed it. Thanks.
>
> [1] https://itsfoss.com/tar-vs-zip-vs-gz/
> [2] https://superuser.com/a/1257441/40003
> [3] https://superuser.com/a/173995/40003
> [4] https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#artifacts
>
>
> Andy LoPresto
> alopre...@apache.org
> *alopresto.apa...@gmail.com *
> PGP Fingerprint: 70EC B3E5 98A6 5A3F D3C4  BACE 3C6E F65B 2F7D EF69
>
>