nifi-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Joseph Witt (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Updated] (NIFI-410) Address findings from 0.0.2 release votes
Date Sun, 15 Mar 2015 02:34:38 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-410?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Joseph Witt updated NIFI-410:
-----------------------------
    Description: 
Ensure nifi-resources zip includes license/notice like all other binary release items:
   Billie Rinaldi in reviewing 0.0.2 noted that we don't have any license/notice information
included in our nifi-resources.zip  We can either not deploy it at all or we can add them
in.

Justin McClean:
- No need for NOTICE to include PathCompiler. it's Apache licensed and has no NOTICE file
so that information IMO should go in LICENSE. It would be valid legally to omit it altogether
[1] but given the author is not the ASF is nice to acknowledge where it came from. Up to you
what you want to do here but either way having a minimal NOTICE file is preferred.
- Consider adding apache to source artefact names for possible extra legal protection / branding

Aldrin Piri:
- Signature matches.  I did not see the .asc.sha1 and .asc.md5 files, but it
may be my misunderstanding of what is being specified in the release guide
[1] under "Validate the signatures of the sources artifact and of each of
the hashes"

Ryan Blue:
- One thing I'd fix for the next release is the exclusion of test resources from the RAT check.
Wouldn't it be better to do that by file extension (e.g., **/*.json, **/*.avro) to avoid not
checking files that could have license headers?
- I know convenience binaries aren't required to release -- a release could just be the source
tarball. But if you intend to publish convenience binaries, I think they should be included
in the release candidate for verification and testing.
 [ comment from joewitt: We should add to our release process the uploading of the RC convenience
binary to dev/dist ]




  was:
Ensure nifi-resources zip includes license/notice like all other binary release items:
   Billie Rinaldi in reviewing 0.0.2 noted that we don't have any license/notice information
included in our nifi-resources.zip  We can either not deploy it at all or we can add them
in.

Justin McClean:
- No need for NOTICE to include PathCompiler. it's Apache licensed and has no NOTICE file
so that information IMO should go in LICENSE. It would be valid legally to omit it altogether
[1] but given the author is not the ASF is nice to acknowledge where it came from. Up to you
what you want to do here but either way having a minimal NOTICE file is preferred.
- Consider adding apache to source artefact names for possible extra legal protection / branding



> Address findings from 0.0.2 release votes
> -----------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NIFI-410
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NIFI-410
>             Project: Apache NiFi
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Tools and Build
>            Reporter: Joseph Witt
>            Assignee: Joseph Witt
>            Priority: Trivial
>             Fix For: 0.1.0
>
>
> Ensure nifi-resources zip includes license/notice like all other binary release items:
>    Billie Rinaldi in reviewing 0.0.2 noted that we don't have any license/notice information
included in our nifi-resources.zip  We can either not deploy it at all or we can add them
in.
> Justin McClean:
> - No need for NOTICE to include PathCompiler. it's Apache licensed and has no NOTICE
file so that information IMO should go in LICENSE. It would be valid legally to omit it altogether
[1] but given the author is not the ASF is nice to acknowledge where it came from. Up to you
what you want to do here but either way having a minimal NOTICE file is preferred.
> - Consider adding apache to source artefact names for possible extra legal protection
/ branding
> Aldrin Piri:
> - Signature matches.  I did not see the .asc.sha1 and .asc.md5 files, but it
> may be my misunderstanding of what is being specified in the release guide
> [1] under "Validate the signatures of the sources artifact and of each of
> the hashes"
> Ryan Blue:
> - One thing I'd fix for the next release is the exclusion of test resources from the
RAT check. Wouldn't it be better to do that by file extension (e.g., **/*.json, **/*.avro)
to avoid not checking files that could have license headers?
> - I know convenience binaries aren't required to release -- a release could just be the
source tarball. But if you intend to publish convenience binaries, I think they should be
included in the release candidate for verification and testing.
>  [ comment from joewitt: We should add to our release process the uploading of the RC
convenience binary to dev/dist ]



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message