incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From James Taylor <jamestay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 2.2.3 incubating
Date Mon, 24 Feb 2014 18:20:28 GMT
I'll cancel this vote and start a vote on a new RC shortly. There was a
pretty serious bug that was found in this one anyway.

Is it best practice to have a separate source-only tar bar and not include
the source in the binary tar ball? Or should it be included in both?

Thanks,
James


On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>wrote:

> Hi Sebb,
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 2:19 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've had a quick look at the (sole) archive, and it contains both
> > source and compiled jars.
> > Although it is OK to release convenience binaries, there must be a
> > source only release, as that is the ASF mission - to release open
> > source.
> >
>
> The "what must every release contain" doc says:
>
> Every ASF release *must* contain a source package, which must be sufficient
> for a user to build and test the release provided they have access to the
> appropriate platform and tools. The source package must be
> cryptographically
> signed <http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html> by the Release
> Manager with a detached signature; and that package together with its
> signature must be tested prior to voting +1 for release.
>
>
> We can mentor the podling to produce a separate source only tarball, but
> this might be a point of confusion, because the candidate tarball here
> conforms to the above language, I have personally built and tested this
> release from the properly signed tarball. It is a source tarball also
> containing compiled binaries.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>

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