On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Ryan Blue <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 09/12/2014 06:53 AM, Tom White wrote: >> >> The artifacts should not have rc1 in their names. This is so that when the >> vote passes they can be released without having to be rebuilt. For the >> source tarball you can place it in a directory that has rc1 in the name. >> For the Maven artifacts you should stage the release. >> >> The NOTICE file has entries for SLF4J and Apache Thrift which should not be >> present for the source distribution, see >> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple. > > > Should the notice file differ between binary jars and the official source > release?
Yes, see [1]: "the LICENSE and NOTICE files for a binary distribution may well differ from those in the source distribution it was built from" Also, I just looked at the NOTICE and LICENSE file in one of the JARs [2] (under META-INF) and they are for Thrift, not Parquet Format, so that needs fixing. Tom [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary [2] https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/releases/com/twitter/parquet-format/2.2.0-rc1/parquet-format-2.2.0-rc1.jar > > I tried to make it clear in the wording that there is a source dependency and > it is only bundled with some binary distributions: "This product depends on > SLF4J and shades SLF4J in some binary artifacts." > > Is this something that should be removed or is it not best practice? I based > this on how entries are done in the Spark NOTICE file [1]. > > rb > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/v1.0.0/NOTICE#L221 > > > -- > Ryan Blue > Software Engineer > Cloudera, Inc.
