Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

+1 to have a source only release On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Ellison Anne Williams < eawilliamsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > There were some issues in extracting the incorrect L files from the > executable jar and re-jarring so as to be fully functioning in a cluster > setting (extracting and

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

There were some issues in extracting the incorrect L files from the executable jar and re-jarring so as to be fully functioning in a cluster setting (extracting and fixing the L files was easy, getting it to fully function on the cluster after re-jarring was not). Thus, I've decided to stick with

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Agreed - let's get through the release and then start a separate thread to discuss the submodule breakout On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Suneel Marthi wrote: > For this release, lets add the README as has been suggested. > > > --- > > Breaking out the

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

+1 On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 20 August 2016 at 17:04, Ellison Anne Williams < > eawilliamsp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Yes, if that's acceptable, then I can go that route. > > > > I can allow the artifacts to be generated and pushed to

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On 20 August 2016 at 17:04, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > Yes, if that's acceptable, then I can go that route. > > I can allow the artifacts to be generated and pushed to Nexus, I can remove > the binary artifacts, fix the L files, rehash/sign, and upload. Then, I >

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Yes, if that's acceptable, then I can go that route. I can allow the artifacts to be generated and pushed to Nexus, I can remove the binary artifacts, fix the L files, rehash/sign, and upload. Then, I can close the repo (which will run through all signing verifications) and provide the URL for

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On 20 August 2016 at 16:23, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > Thanks Tim - yes, I've been following that thread with interest. To speak > to the documentation for Pirk releases, I have been working on a page for > the website documenting our release process (and the

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Thanks Tim - yes, I've been following that thread with interest. To speak to the documentation for Pirk releases, I have been working on a page for the website documenting our release process (and the gotchas) step-by-step. Once we complete a successful release vote internally, I will put forth

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Exactly - which requires a submodule refactor, hence holding off... Any other way to satisfies the requirements that Tim mentioned in his last email? On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Suneel Marthi wrote: > I have been looking at this, seems like most of this is best

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Understood. Does anyone know how to exclude / stop maven from generating the license files and placing them in META-INF? I don't know off of the top of my head and would appreciate not having to spend lots of time digging if someone already knows how to do it. Thanks! On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

I agree we need to split the project into multiple modules as we have support for Spark, Storm etc.. coming in. Would it also make sense to make responder and querier their own modules and publishing those jars to maven central? Would there be a Use Case wherein Responder would be needed in a 3rd

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

I think that our first release should be a 'complete' one, including the binary artifacts, but I don't think that it has to be the most pristine on the L front as long as we meet the ASF L requirements (which, as far as I can tell, is far more than most Apache projects ;)). We can make the

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 19/08/16 15:53, Suneel Marthi wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Tim Ellison > wrote: > > >> I'd appreciate other mentors' close review of these built artefacts too. > >> > >>

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Comments inline below. Additionally, as stated before, this is not the most elegant solution but is seems to satisfy all of the L ASF requirements (that I can find). It seems that a full re-factor with submodules (a la NiFi) will be necessary to make it cleaner. I would prefer that we make

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Apologies!! I ranted a little too soon (I am in a Samuel Jackson state of mind - "Say License One more Time and ." Addressing the issues raised below : 1. exclude /logs from source-release.zip - easy fix 2. /META-INF/bin-license-notice/LICENSE-bin - should be in /META-INF/LICENSE

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 19/08/16 14:52, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > > Can you please take a look at PR 65 (PIRK-53) and let me know if we are > > ready to go with L for our first release? > > I feel like I'm being the bad cop :-( > >

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On 19/08/16 14:52, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > Can you please take a look at PR 65 (PIRK-53) and let me know if we are > ready to go with L for our first release? I feel like I'm being the bad cop :-( I'm trying to put myself into the shoes of somebody picking up one of these artefacts, and

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Mentors - Can you please take a look at PR 65 (PIRK-53) and let me know if we are ready to go with L for our first release? Thanks! Ellison Anne On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Ellison Anne Williams < eawilliamsp...@gmail.com> wrote: > So, here is what I ended up doing: > > 1.) Changing the

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

So, here is what I ended up doing: 1.) Changing the root LICENSE and NOTICE files to be the source-only Pirk L files 2.) Creating a src/main/resource/META-INF/bin-license-notice directory containing the L files corresponding to the binary distribution of Pirk -- LICENSE-bin and NOTICE-bin 3.)

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Thanks guys. I will make another set of L files (other than what's in the root of PR 53) for the source-only release artifacts and figure out where to place them based on the previous comments. I will add them to PR 53, so let's not merge yet (I will change the status to WIP)... I want to make

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Every artifact needs L files, so the source release zip and jars all need their own L Perhaps the L would be the same for the zip and source-only jars (depending on the exact contents), while the exe jar would need a different L I believe the assembly plugin only creates the zip, and some other

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

A given bundle of things must have L that accounts for all things in that bundle of things. That is all. On Aug 17, 2016 11:25 AM, "Ellison Anne Williams" wrote: Yes -- the source release would fall into case (2) below and the convenience binary (executable jar) would

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Yes -- the source release would fall into case (2) below and the convenience binary (executable jar) would fall into case (1). Is this correct? On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Joe Witt wrote: > The zip of the source is the source release. That is not a binary >

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

The zip of the source is the source release. That is not a binary convenience artifact. On Aug 17, 2016 11:04 AM, "Ellison Anne Williams" wrote: > From the discussion, although this seems to be somewhat murky ASF ground, > it seems that we need two sets of L files: >

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

It looks like it is also possible to have src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE and src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/NOTICE that will be appended to the default. See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-3990 and these examples:

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On 17/08/16 16:08, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > I'm seeing the same LICENSE and NOTICE files used throughout NiFi - even in > the nifi-assembly directory which is referenced here > https://nifi.apache.org/licensing-guide.html FWIW the LICENSE I see in "nifi-1.0.0-BETA-source-release.zip" is

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Hello, The link Tim provided to the licesning guide NiFi uses is definitely a great place to start as it brings together a bunch of ASF policy and/or guidance and applies it to the context of Apache NiFi, what we release, and our bundling model. Whether this is a strict policy or not is clear -

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

Yes, we should have different L in different jars when necessary, and this is possible to configure through maven. That said, I haven't done it myself, so I'll have to track down some examples of other projects that do this. On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Tim Ellison

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files

On 17/08/16 16:08, Ellison Anne Williams wrote: > I'm seeing the same LICENSE and NOTICE files used throughout NiFi - even in > the nifi-assembly directory which is referenced here > https://nifi.apache.org/licensing-guide.html > > Joe - Am I missing something here? > > I would echo Suneel and

Re: Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files (was: Re: [GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #65: [PIRK-53] - Fix LICENSE and NOTICE Files fo...)

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Tim Ellison wrote: > On 17/08/16 11:40, ellisonanne wrote: > > Github user ellisonanne commented on a diff in the pull request: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/65# > discussion_r75099656 > > > > --- Diff:

Source JAR vs. Convenience binary JAR license files (was: Re: [GitHub] incubator-pirk pull request #65: [PIRK-53] - Fix LICENSE and NOTICE Files fo...)

On 17/08/16 11:40, ellisonanne wrote: > Github user ellisonanne commented on a diff in the pull request: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pirk/pull/65#discussion_r75099656 > > --- Diff: LICENSE --- > @@ -199,4 +199,64 @@ > distributed under the License is distributed