htrace-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <bil...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] htrace-3.1.0, fifth release candidate
Date Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:09:56 GMT
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Billie Rinaldi <billie@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I have 796e2438fafac3510938c1f987fadd27eef6c063, but it doesn't appear to
> > be tagged.  Maybe the tag still needs to be pushed or something?
> >
>
> Its pushed. See tags here:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-htrace.git
>
>
> > Regarding the binary files, I don't think they can be included in a
> > src-only tarball.
> >
> >
> You are right. I misread it as you asking about the top-level bin dir.
> Clean must not be removing them or I need to add an exclude to the
> assembly.
>
>
>
> > Going down the release checklist (
> > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list),
> it
> > looks as though we're okay on most of the points, but we're missing the
> > disclaimer,
>
>
> You are right.
>
>
>
>
>
> > the filenames don't have "incubating" in them (I've seen other
> > podlings handle this by adding -incubating to the version number, e.g.
> > 3.1.0-incubating), and the release doesn't consist only of source code.
> >
>
> Sorry, what you saying in the last bit Billie ("... and the release doesn't
> consist only of source code")  Are you saying we should do a binary tarball
> too?
>

No, a source tarball is fine.  I was just referring to the compiled files
in htrace-core/src/go/bin.  If those are removed I think we'll be able to
check off this item.


>
>
>
> > good - 1.1 Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> > good - 2.1 Build is successful including automated tests.
> > still need to address - 3.1 DISCLAIMER is correct, filenames include
> > "incubating".
> > see below - 3.2 Top-level LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for each
> > distribution.
> > good - 3.3 All source files have license headers where appropriate.
> > good - 3.4 The provenance of all source files is clear (ASF or software
> > grants).
> > good - 3.5 Dependencies licenses are ok as per http://apache.org/legal/
> > release contains compiled code - 3.6 Release consists of source code
> only,
> > no binaries.
> >
> > Regarding the LICENSE and NOTICE, in htrace-hbase/src/main/webapps/static
> > we have d3.min.js, bootstrap-theme.min.css and bootstrap.min.css.  d3 is
> > BSD-licensed and bootstrap is MIT-licensed, so these should be mentioned
> in
> > the LICENSE file, presumably with the entire text of their licenses since
> > we're using the minimized versions (
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps).
> >
> >
> Thanks. Will do.
>
>
>
> > In htrace-zipkin/src/main/thrift we have scribe.thrift and
> > zipkinCore.thrift that seem to be from Zipkin.  Since Zipkin is
> > Apache-licensed and has a NOTICE file, I think we need to copy the first
> > couple of lines to our NOTICE (e.g. Zipkin is a distributed tracing
> system.
> > Copyright 2012 Twitter, Inc. -- we can leave out the optional
> dependencies
> > listed in their NOTICE).
> >
> >
> Will do.
>
>
>
> > Regarding the projects currently mentioned in the NOTICE file:
> > junit - we don't actually bundle this, do we? can we remove it from the
> > notice?
> > levigo and kingpin - MIT licensed, so should be mentioned in LICENSE
> > instead of NOTICE
> > units - I'm a little concerned about this one since the license is
> > undetermined -- what if it's made GPL?
> >
> >
> Thanks for the thorough review Billie. Will address and post new RC.
>
> Thanks,
> St.Ack
>
>
>
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Stack <stack@duboce.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sorry for the delay; I'm just getting back from vacation and am
> taking
> > a
> > > > look now.  Do we have a KEYS file?
> > >
> > >
> > > No. Was thinking this a TODO for when we move RC to release.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >   Is there a tag for the release
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes (Pull down tags to your local repo and see its tagged 3.1.0RC4 at
> > > 796e2438fafac3510938c1f987fadd27eef6c063 We made a 3.1 branch soon
> > after).
> > >
> > >
> > > > candidate?  The tarball doesn't quite match what is in git, so how is
> > the
> > > > tarball created from the tag?
> > >
> > >
> > > Checkout the tag and then do:
> > >
> > > $ mvn clean install assembly:single
> > >
> > > I'll write up how-to-RC soon.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also are the binary files in
> > > > htrace-core/src/go/bin intended to be in the tarball?  I'll check
> over
> > > the
> > > > license and notice information as well.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Yes. They are there right?
> > >
> > > Thanks Billie,
> > > St.Ack
> > >
> >
>

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