bq. I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release +1
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - verified signatures + checksums > - run mvn clean install -Prelease, all artifacts build and the tests run > smoothly (modulo some local issues I had with the installation of tox for > the python sdk, I created a PR to fix those in case other people can have > the same trouble). > > Some remarks still to fix from the release, but that I don’t consider > blockers: > > 1. The section Getting Started in the main README.md needs to be updated > with the information about the creating/activating the virtualenv. At this > moment just running mvn clean install won’t work without this. > > 2. Both zip files in the current release produce a folder with the same > name ‘apache-beam-0.6.0’. This can be messy if users unzip both files into > the same folder (as happened to me, the compressed files should produce a > directory with the exact same name that the file, so > apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip will produce apache-beam-0.6.0-python and the > other its respective directory. > > 3. The name of the files of the release probably should be different: > > The source release could be just apache-beam-0.6.0.zip instead of > apache-beam-0.6.0-source-release.zip considering that we don’t have binary > artifacts, or just apache-beam-0.6.0-src.zip following the convention of > other apache projects. > > The python release also could be renamed from > apache-beam-0.6.0-bin-python.zip instead of apache-beam-0.6.0-python.zip > so > users understand that these are executable files (but well I am not sure > about that one considering that python is a scripting language). > > Finally I would prefer that we have a .tar.gz release as JB mentioned in > the previous vote, and as most apache projects do. In any case if the zip > is somehow a requirement it would be nice to have both a .zip and a .tar.gz > file. >
