This sounds good to me. On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:
> This vote thread looks like a hanging chad. The current vote count is: > > +1 Ted > +1 Lars > +1 Justin > +1 or -1: Grant > -0 Jan > > I would love to have a clarification vote from Grant. I read his concern > and the subsequent messages to mean +1 but I'm a bit biased as I'd like to > see this release go out. Whatever the case, I suggest we give 24 hours for > additional feedback and then finish the vote. If Grant does not clarify > his stance, I propose that we ignore his ambiguous vote. Steven, how does > that sound? > > thanks, > Jacques > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:24 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If it contains sources, it's not a binary release. > > > > > > Not strictly true. Binary artifacts often contain source code examples. > > > > > > Also, for Drill specifically, the code generation strategy that Drill > uses > > requires that snippets of source for different operators and system > > packaged UDF's will be in the binary release. The user has no clue about > > this source, much of which is machine generated from templates. > > > > From the user's point of view, however, it is a binary distro because > they > > can download it and run Drill with no further build steps. > > > -- Steven Phillips Software Engineer mapr.com
