Great, thanks for your thoughts. I think, we won't re-roll for now (given we don't know the opinions on general@ and we still can do the LEGAL path in the near future).
Thx Richard Am 10. Mai 2024 16:49:07 MESZ schrieb Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org>: > > >> On May 9, 2024, at 9:50 PM, Richard Zowalla <rich...@zowalla.com> wrote: >> >> Noted, thx! >> >> I have created some issues to track the feedback received so far: >> >> - (1) https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler/issues/1214 >> - (2) https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler/issues/1215 >> - (3) https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler/issues/1216 >> - (4) https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler-site/issues/26 >> >> I think we can address (1),(2),(4) of them right now without doing a re-roll >> of the release candidate. I would postpone the update of the RAT exclusions >> after we have received additional thoughts on the general@ VOTE thread. >> >> However, I am wondering about the following: >> >> (a) Do you think we should address the difference between the tag and the >> source artifact too? (In the sense of reproducible builds, it would make >> sense imho - WDYT?) > >The tag is just a GitHub thing and it is essentially everything in the branch >automatically. If the project wishes to “release” GitHub workflows and >templates then yes. I’m not sure if there is any value in releasing the >.asf.yaml file. ASF Projects release a source package of what’s needed to >build. Reproducible builds are about source builds producing identical >binaries and I don’t see why these edge case files would ever be included in a >binary. > >IMO - the tag and the release don’t have to match. I think the main reason I >mentioned the difference was to highlight that what’s important is the source >release and not the tag on GitHub is the release. > >> >> (b) From your experience: would it make sense to just fix that and just do a >> re-roll with fixed licenses for these files to avoid unnecessary cycles? >> Personally, I don't mind adding them and if it saves cycles, we should just >> fix that :-) > >There is a third option here. We could create a LEGAL Jira and then discuss >which file types absolutely require an Apache License header. I know that some >are fine with a link in a comment at the top of a markdown file. I don’t know >if there is a recent definitive answer. > >The VP, Legal is responsible for licensing requirements and not the Incubator. >The Incubator is responsible for teaching. So really the gap is in documenting >acceptable choices. > >I hope to find time to look into this more over the weekend. > >Best, >Dave > >> >> Thx und Gruß >> Richard >> >> Am 10. Mai 2024 03:36:13 MESZ schrieb Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org>: >>> You are correct. When we go to general@incubator swap Source with Maven. >>> >>>> On May 9, 2024, at 1:45 PM, Richard Zowalla <rich...@zowalla.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/stormcrawler/stormcrawler-3.0/ >>>> is contained in the mail in the "Source" section? >>>> >>>> The Rat excludes are defined in the related plugin config, which can be >>>> updated, if needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Am 9. Mai 2024 22:04:40 MESZ schrieb Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org>: >>>>> Once this VOTE passes here you must include the link to >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/stormcrawler/stormcrawler-3.0/ >>>>> artifacts in the IPMC VOTE. If you don’t then it will be a quick -1. >>>>> >>>>> The artifacts in >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/stormcrawler/stormcrawler-3.0/ >>>>> are what we must check and vote on. We can compare this with GitHub tags >>>>> to verify they have the same content. >>>>> >>>>> On https://stormcrawler.staged.apache.org/download/index.html the sha and >>>>> asc should use downloads.apache.org instead of closer.cgi. The source >>>>> release should use closer.lua instead of closer.cgi. >>>>> >>>>> Ask on #asfinfra slack if you want to confirm the proper use of downloads >>>>> and closer.lua. >>>>> >>>>> It is likely that the IPMC VOTE will discuss some of the yaml, md, sh, >>>>> and txt requiring a License header if the format supports it. I know that >>>>> json and ndjson (jsonl) files don’t support this. Files which do not >>>>> support a License header ought to be listed in a .rat-excludes file. >>>>> >>>>> It is up to you about fixing this now or going ahead with fixing this now. >>>>> >>>>> I’m VOTING +1 (binding) for now. >>>>> >>>>> I checked the signature and checksum and they are good. LICENSE and >>>>> NOTICE are good for a source release. The GitHub tag include the .github >>>>> directory and .asf.yaml while the source release adds DEPENDENCIES >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Dave >>>>> >>>>>> On May 9, 2024, at 9:45 AM, Tim Allison <talli...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> shasum checks out for source >>>>>> Built locally on ubuntu with Java 17 >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2024/05/07 09:12:55 Richard Zowalla wrote: >>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have posted a 2nd release candidate for the Apache StormCrawler >>>>>>> (Incubating) 3.0 release and it is ready for testing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The previous VOTE was cancelled because building from source (without >>>>>>> an initalized git repo) wasn't possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is our first release after joining the ASF incubator as a >>>>>>> poddling. It is a breaking change with renamings in the group ids and >>>>>>> the removal of the elasticsearch module. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you to everyone who contributed to this release, including all of >>>>>>> our users and the people who submitted bug reports, >>>>>>> contributed code or documentation enhancements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The release was made using the Apache StormCrawler (Incubating) release >>>>>>> process, documented here: >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler/RELEASING.md >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maven Repo: >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachestormcrawler-1001/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <repositories> >>>>>>> <repository> >>>>>>> <id>stormcrawler-3.0-rc1</id> >>>>>>> <name>Testing StormCrawler 3.0 release candidate</name> >>>>>>> <url> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachestormcrawler-1001/ >>>>>>> </url> >>>>>>> </repository> >>>>>>> </repositories> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Source: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/stormcrawler/stormcrawler-3.0/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tag: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler/releases/tag/stormcrawler-3.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Preview of website: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://stormcrawler.staged.apache.org/download/index.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Release notes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-stormcrawler/releases/tag/stormcrawler-3.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reminder: The up-2-date KEYS file for signature verification can be >>>>>>> found here: >>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/stormcrawler/KEYS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please vote on releasing these packages as Apache StormCrawler >>>>>>> (Incubating) 3.0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote is open for at least the next 72 hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Only votes from IPMC members are binding, but everyone on the PPMC is >>>>>>> welcome to check the release candidate and vote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote passes if at least three binding +1 votes are cast. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please VOTE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [+1] go ship it >>>>>>> [+0] meh, don't care >>>>>>> [-1] stop, there is a ${showstopper} >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please include your checklist in your vote: >>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/Incubator+Release+Checklist >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note: After this VOTE passes on our dev@ list, the VOTE will be brought >>>>>>> to general@ in order to get the necessary IPMC votes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> Richard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >
