RATIS-348 is committed, so we are good to push new snapshot for this ozone
blocker.
On 10/11/18, 11:59 AM, "Josh Elser" <els...@apache.org> wrote:
(pulling this out the vote thread to avoid confusion)
No problem, Anu. Happy to push a SNAPSHOT build of Ratis.
On 10/11/18 2:56 PM, Anu Engineer wrote:
> Would it be possible to do a full Ratis snap-shot release? So, we can
just consume all the changes with a single update on ozone side.
> Sorry, I am just being a little selfish here, but it makes ozone’s life
little easier. Otherwise we will have to follow up with another release.
>
> --Anu
>
>
> On 10/11/18, 11:44 AM, "Josh Elser" <els...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hey Anu,
>
> No need for me to wait around. This is just for the new thirdparty
repo
> -- not a release of ratis itself :)
>
> On 10/11/18 2:31 PM, Anu Engineer wrote:
> > Hi Josh,
> >
> > Can you please include Ratis-348?, it fixes a critical issue for
Ozone. You might have to wait until the end of day to roll the build.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Anu
> >
> >
> > On 10/11/18, 11:26 AM, "Josh Elser" <els...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > The only thing that the ASF releases is source code,
therefore the
> > policy you're quoting isn't relevant. There is no requirement
to vote on
> > binary artifacts that are created from that source release.
The
> > obligation on us is to verify that anything else the source
release
> > creates follows ASF licensing like the source release does
(e.g. our
> > JARs contain appropriate L&N files).
> >
> > You are right about incubating in the filename though --
totally forgot
> > about that requirement. Let me roll an rc1 with that.
> >
> > Thanks for catching that!
> >
> > On 10/11/18 11:23 AM, Tsz Wo Sze wrote:
> > >> I don't see any value for that, tbh. ...
> > >
> > > I agree that no one is going to download and use the
binary. However,
> > > it is an artifact which we can vote for. It seems ASF
requires us to
> > > put this artifact in the distribution directory, which is a
> > > subdirectory of www.apache.org/dist/ according to
> > >
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#where-do-releases-go
> > >
> > > BTW, just found the following from
> > > https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
> > > - the release archive MUST contain the word "incubating" in
the filename; and
> > > - the release archive MUST contain an Incubation disclaimer
(as
> > > described in the previous section), clearly visible in the
main
> > > documentation or README file.
> > >
> > > We don't have "incubating" in the rc0 filename and
DISCLAIMER seems
> > > missing in the binary jars in
> > >
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheratis-1007/
> > >
> > > I guess we need a rc1?
> > >
> > > Tsz-Wo
> > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:43 PM Josh Elser
<els...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the vote, Nicholas!
> > >>
> > >> On 10/10/18 10:43 PM, Tsz Wo Sze wrote:
> > >> > - untar and then "mvn install" does work for me. It
won't work if we
> > >> > run a second "mvn install" without clean. "mvn
install" works again
> > >> > after "mvn clean". It seems not a problem.
> > >>
> > >> Will have to investigate what's going on.
> > >>
> > >>> Questions:
> > >>> - Should we post a rc for the binary?
> > >>
> > >> I don't see any value for that, tbh. 99% of people are not
going to know
> > >> this even exists and will get it via Maven. In another
line of thinking,
> > >> the Maven repository I sent out "is" the binary release :)
> > >>
> > >>> - Now the project name becomes "Apache Ratis Thirdparty
Parent" (and
> > >>> the gz file name) instead of "Apache Ratis Thirdparty".
It is a
> > >>> little odd. How about using "Apache Ratis Thirdparty"
for the root
> > >>> module and "Apache Ratis Thirdparty Shaded" for the
sub-module? I am
> > >>> fine if we do the rename later.
> > >>
> > >> More than happy to revisit naming later on :). I wasn't
able to come up
> > >> with a good name for our general Ratis dependencies
module. "Apache
> > >> Ratis Thirdparty Shaded" is probably the forerunner, but I
don't feel
> > >> like it's very descriptive. Need to think about that some
more :)
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
