Thanks for the review Justin, hopefully the team could help answer your concerns about the RC
- Henry On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > > As an IPMC/previous shepherd thought I give my feedback. > > Signatures and hashes all good > DISCLAIMER correct > Filename contains "incubating" > NOTICE and LICENCE good (checked all 3rd party bit of code and they all seem > to be there) > Not all files have correct headers - may or may not be OK > There's a few binaries in the release > Can compile from source > Test pass > > From a quick look there are python, CSS, JS, JSON and HMTL template (tpl) > files that are misisng headers. Some are 3rd party so may not be an issue but > the ones in src/main/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler may be? Given the > large number of files (207) it's a little hard to easily review this. Has rat > been run on the release? > > Binary files in release - some of these may be OK > /3rdparty/javascript/bower_components/angular/angular.min.js.gzip > /gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar > /src/test/resources/org/apache/aurora/scheduler/app/AuroraTestKeyStore > /src/resources/org/apache/thermos/root/checkpoints/failure/coordinator.* > > Re the gradle wrapper I was able to use gradle to compile without it so it > may not actually be required in the source release? > > As it was not mentioned directly in the README etc I was unaware that you > should use gradlew command instead. I saw later that it is mentioned in > docs/developing-aurora-scheduler.md. > > A few (very) minor things: > - Release file doesn't have apache in it's name, while not required it may > give extra legal protection [1] > - KEYS are usually outside release package > - Not sure if this is possible, as i'm not familiar with gradle, but you may > want to consider a source and binary release with the binary having the > gradle jar? > - BUILD is usually named BUILDING or the build information put in README. > - I notice the .asc file has .md5 and .sha hashes of it in the RC directory. > There are probably not required. > > I'm sure you know your own project better that me, so if I've mentioned > something that already been discussed or I've misunderstood something I > apologise in advance. The fact I was able to take the source package and > compile it will minimal effort certainly indicates to me that it's release > ready. > > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice
