Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

With 4 binding +1, the vote passes. I'll send this to the incubator for the official incubator general list for the official incubator vote now. Thanks, Ran On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 7:51 PM, Avia Efrat wrote: > 1) Validated signature & checksums > 2) Validated LICENSE,

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

1) Validated signature & checksums 2) Validated LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER, "incubating" in archive name 3) Made a clean install using "pip install ." 4) Ran tests using "make test" +1 On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Suneel Marthi wrote: > +1 binding > > 1. Verified

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

+1 binding 1. Verified {sdist, bdist, source} * {sha, md5} hashes and sigs 2. Built project from {source} with "pip install" 3. Ran tests 4. Verified -incubating in artifacts names. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 7:13 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:18 AM

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

Thanks John. I took a note of adding the relevant instructions to the readme. I'll make sure it's added soon. On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:13 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:18 AM Ran Ziv wrote: > > > Okay. I didn't have anything to

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 9:18 AM Ran Ziv wrote: > Okay. I didn't have anything to go by since as far as I can tell, other > projects don't put their PyPI package candidates on /dist/dev, but to my > understanding, in the previous voting thread you've requested to have it on >

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

Okay. I didn't have anything to go by since as far as I can tell, other projects don't put their PyPI package candidates on /dist/dev, but to my understanding, in the previous voting thread you've requested to have it on there as well. In any case, I modified the layout as you'd requested.

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0 (#2)

Ran, I would recommend a different directory layout, to make it clear that these are three different artifacts for the same release. Most projects create a version number below their project name, or just dump all of the files in the root (makes it easier to remember to clean up afterwards).

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

Ran, I previously sent this email [1] on a recommended approach for creating a source release. Let me know if that helps. Since I didn't see any questions, I had assumed that it made sense. I would label what you have proposed here as the pypi package, which would be good for review as well.

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

The vote is cancelled in light of a "-1" vote. I'll fix the mentioned issues next week and raise another vote. I could still use some clarification with regards to what constitutes a "source distribution" for this matter. Thanks, Ran On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Ran Ziv

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

Right, I'll need to look more into RAT before creating another RC package then. Re source release - so should it contain exactly everything that's in the repository? This is somewhat different from the Python concept of a source distribution. Does it mean the generated doc files can't be there

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

This is confusing to me. Python is an interpreted language, so there is no real difference between source and binary. In the Python world, you would probably differentiate between "dev" (everything on the git repo, including tests and development tools) and "release" (just what's needed to run).

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

You can go with this - this is more recent and i have been enforcing this on podlings I mentor as well as TLPs I am involved with https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f27488e6a5d2355651b0aeb9dd6d82891e20d802ee3c58a0cc4a6533@%3Cdev.streams.apache.org%3E On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:00 PM, John D.

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:53 AM Ran Ziv wrote: > Suneel, re mentioning 72 hours - note that I simply used the recommended > template for these messages from here: > >

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

Suneel, re mentioning 72 hours - note that I simply used the recommended template for these messages from here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-stdcxx-dev/200601.mbox/%3c43c1c0a0.7040...@roguewave.com%3E John: Are you reading this off the README? If so, you'll notice that the

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

-1. Found the following issues: - BUILD instructions are INSTALL instructions, and the installation doesn't work pip install apache-ariatosca Collecting apache-ariatosca Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement apache-ariatosca (from versions: ) No matching distribution found

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

... and also please mention that the vote will be 'Open' for 72 hrs - which means July 2, Sunday for this release candidate - following which we move to IPMC votes (another 72 hrs) --- and then the release happens if all goes well. On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:37 AM, John D. Ament

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

That's correct - u get to move the artifacts to /release only after the iPMC okays the release artifacts. On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:37 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > Ran, > > Just to be clear, per incubator voting policies this is the dev vote. > There's a second vote that

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

Yes, I'm aware of this, sorry if I've mis-phrased the purpose of the vote. Thanks for clearing this up. On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:37 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Ran, > > Just to be clear, per incubator voting policies this is the dev vote. > There's a second vote that

Re: [VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

Ran, Just to be clear, per incubator voting policies this is the dev vote. There's a second vote that happens on general@incubator before actually moving it to /dist/release John On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:26 AM Ran Ziv wrote: > I created a tarball candidate for the 0.1.0

[VOTE] publish ariatosca 0.1.0

I created a tarball candidate for the 0.1.0 release and placed it in ARIA's /dist/dev folder: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ariatosca/ The file is signed (.asc) and its MD5 / SHA512 checksums may be found in that folder as well. The list of issues Resolved for this release are