Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Hi Justin, I'm struggling to find any examples of ASF jars pushed to maven central that have anything other than the standard boilerplate Apache LICENSE and NOTICE. Having a transitive dependency on another jar doesn't appear to be mentioned in any jar LICENSE/NOTICE that I checked. Having code

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Hi, Those jars are likely to have different LICENSE and NOTICE files so I would suggest you vote on both at the same time. Kind Regards, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Thanks Hans. That would be the general plan with the Maven jar part of our releases. * as part of the RC where we stage a source release for people to vote on, we will also push jars to repository.apache.org staging repo * if the vote on the source release passes, we will release the source

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Isn't staging for release on maven central the same as creating binary convenience artifacts? Staging to the ASF nexus to then be pushed to maven central is part of your release process [1] Cheers, Hans [1] https://infra.apache.org/publishing-maven-artifacts.html On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 at 20:15,

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Thanks Julian for clarifying the terminology. I think the general consensus in the Pekko team is that there is no call for creating binary artifacts distributions (example [1]). The initial user base of Pekko are users who currently use Akka but dislike the move to Business Source License

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DevLake (Incubating) v0.15.0-rc5

+1(binding) I checked - LICENSE,NOTICE and DISCLAIMER-WIP files exist - Include the word incubating in the release file name. - Good signature from "abeizn " - No unexpected binary files - Some files[1-12] don't have license header. - Need to update the NOTICE year to 2022-2023 next release.

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

It’s useful to clarify the terminology. There’s no such thing as a “binary release”. Release policy [1] says: > Every ASF release MUST contain one or more source packages > All releases are in the form of the source materials needed to make changes > to the software being released. > > As a

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Hi PJ, Daffodil uses sbt and produces binary releases - https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/3.4.0/ - https://GitHub.com/Apache/daffodil/ Best, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 8, 2023, at 6:33 AM, PJ Fanning wrote: > > Hi everyone, > The release management guide [1] only mentions 'source

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Hi Only source codes(tars) are treated as releases. So generally, you could only put the source tars as the vote releases. Meanwhile, we should check the runtime dependencies about License compatibility, such as no Catalog X or commercial license dependencies in the runtime(especially not

Re: [QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Hi PJ, Only source releases are required. Apache Kvrocks (Incubating) release 2.1.0 (the first Apache release) with sources only, although there's a following vote for Docker release due to user's requirement :) You may refer to: https://lists.apache.org/thread/v63xyr8rw5o7h0flt3fx3mrn9vxsyskm

[QUESTION] are binary distributions/releases required?

Hi everyone, The release management guide [1] only mentions 'source releases'. Every Apache project that I am familiar with also does binary releases. For applications, this makes sense - having a zip/tgz file that you can download and extract - that you can then readily start the application