drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ashish <paliwalash...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Date Mon, 09 Sep 2013 06:21:42 GMT
Quick feedback

1. In Readme file, would be great if you can list build dependencies as
bullets (under Quick start section. It's my personal preference, you can
ignore. It makes it easy for reader)
2. After removing sandbox, RAT check still fails, few files have missing
headers including pom.xml. Need to add excludes for .gitignore and other
ignore in pom.xml
3. License file looks fine, you can remove the portion at end after "=="
line. This holds true for source only release, for binary you need to have
additional entries. Lot of project maintain separate file for source and
binary
4. Notice file - Replace "Apache Drill Root POM" with "Apache Drill"

We are good for a source only release with these fixes. Need to spend more
time on binary release. Apache Falcon did something similar, they made a
source only release and are working on making a binary release.

Here is a helpful link http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

Good Luck !



On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Ashish <paliwalashish@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMHO, I would prefer to focus on following
>
> 1. Fix Header, RAT should run clean
> 2. Fix License, it's painful, but get it's best to get it right first time
> 3. Source only release, which builds fine and test passes fine
>
> This would be good to get the release all the +1's needed.
>
> I will hunt down the Licensing related discussion that we had, to see if I
> can help here. Alternatively, reaching out to incubator general always help
> (sebb is very helpful in fixing this aspect ). I shall try to spend time on
> this in next few hours.
>
> Hopefully, we shall have a release soon :)
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding libs, I concur.  The source release does not have jars.   I
>> think
>> I may have confused myself by unpacking both into the same place and not
>> properly cleaning in between.
>>
>> Regarding licenses and headers, I don't know the full list.  Clearly we
>> need license info about netty since we include that code.  Clearly a fair
>> bit of code doesn't have any headers.  Removing the sandbox from the
>> source
>> release might be a strong step toward fixing that in the actual release.
>>
>> I suspect that because we keep finding lint that this isn't a complete
>> list
>> of problems. I think that generating a better list of problems by having a
>> small group meet and walk through the (large and confusing) Apache release
>> guide would be helpful.
>>
>> I have asked Grant and Isabel to take a peek and help us get a more
>> complete view of what is needed as well.  I may ask somebody else from the
>> incubator crew to give us a hand, especially if Grant and Isabel are tied
>> up.
>>
>> A big part of the problem has to do with the fact that Apache release
>> processes are a bit variable.  Another part is that the standards are
>> changing.  Another is that there are *lots* of details to be covered.
>>
>> Once this first release is done, a second release should be massively
>> easier.  Frankly, the difficulty of the first release is precisely the
>> point of the incubator and the mentor system.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Libs:
>> > The source release doesn't have any jars in it as far as I can tell...
>> >
>> > License Headers/Netty:
>> > Are you saying we need to fix license headers and add a notice for Netty
>> > then do another rc?  If so, is there anything else we need to do before
>> I
>> > do the work of another release?
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Jacques
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Do we have the list of licenses?  Or has someone run RAT?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I just ran RAT.
>> > >
>> > > We have lots of files with no license headers.
>> > >
>> > > We also have code with Netty headers which isn't mentioned in the
>> NOTICES
>> > > or LICENSES file.
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> ashish
>
> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
>



-- 
thanks
ashish

Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message