Re: Publishing Ratis snapshot (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis Thirdparty 0.1.0rc0)
FYI, did this at 15:29:51 EDT against 9b2d7b65cf271e2b3b3616d427edf2688586a56c (which is the commit for RATIS-348) On 10/11/18 3:17 PM, Jitendra Pandey wrote: 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" 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" 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" 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 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 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 > >
Re: Publishing Ratis snapshot (was Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis Thirdparty 0.1.0rc0)
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" 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" 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" 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 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 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.
