Hey Bogi, AWESOME!!! Many thanks for taking this initiative, helps a lot.
I'll adjust the changes in a few hours ( right now I'm traveling!) Many thanks once more, Attila On Dec 5, 2017 12:35 PM, "Boglarka Egyed" <b...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Attila, > > I am not a PMC Member but I took a look and found that e.g. for Flume the > version handling is the same, see https://github.com/apache/ > flume/blob/trunk/LICENSE or for the latest Sqoop2 release too: > https://github.com/apache/sqoop/blob/sqoop2/LICENSE.txt > > Based on this I would say we should follow the existing process and also > regarding the binary/source tar.gz files I would do the same as in the > previous release. > > Of course, a confirmation from a PMC Member would be great. > > Cheers, > Bogi > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 2:15 AM, Attila Szabó <mau...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Dear PMC members, > > > > During the preparation of 1.4.7 I've found something interesting in > > connection with the LICENSE.txt file we've used to bound together with > the > > SQOOP tar.gz files. > > > > As I've seen since 1.4.0-incubating (before that I've got no information, > > as I've checked it from the location http://archive.apache.org/ > dist/sqoop/ > > ) we've never filled out the proper version number of the dependencies, > but > > rather just keeping it in the following format: > > lib/xy-<version>.jar - where xy would be the name of the related > > dependency, but the "<version>" placeholder never filled with the proper > > version number. > > > > I've also found some discrepancy between the LICENSE.txt convention of > the > > binary/source tar.gz files from version to version. A good example for > > that: > > - in case of 1.4.5 in the source jar only those jars are listed which > are > > bound within the tar.gz > > - in case of 1.4.6 in the source jar all of the jars are listed which > had > > been used for the binary version as well. > > > > My questions are the following: > > - Should we follow the existing process with 1.4.7, and not filling the > > exact version numbers, or should we ship with a fully LICENSE.txt? > > - Should we make a difference between the source and binary tar.gz files > > (like in case of 1.4.5) or should we follow the convention of the very > last > > release (1.4.6)? > > > > Looking forward reading your answers, > > > > Yours, > > Attila > > > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_ > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > Virus-free. > > www.avg.com > > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_ > > source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > >