Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

Yonik Seeley-2
On 11/28/06, Apache Wiki <[hidden email]> wrote:

> + == Things That Need Done To Have An Initial Release ==
> +
> + This is a "short term" list of things people think of that need to be done before we can have our first official release.  [http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html This guide] should also be consulted for more info.
> +
> +  * write a Release HOWTO wiki documenting all of hte steps to making a release ...
ideally this should mainly be stuff about validating the release,
signing it, and pushing it out to the mirrors ... any mindless command
execution that winds up being listed in the HOWTO should be added to
the build.xml
> +  * ensure all files have liscence info (Yonik started this, is it finished?)

Getting there...   I still need to investigate to see what Jetty
requires us to add to our NOTICE.

> +  * verify that NOTICE file is up to snuff
> +  * add a STATUS file (what goes in it?)

Where's the link that you saw this STATUS file?

> +  * the META-INF of all jars/wars we produce need to include our LICENSE and NOTICE files
> +  * make jar MANIFEST files "standards compliant" (what exactly does that mean?
> +  * change src builds to include LICENSE, CHANGES, README, build.xml

src.zip isn't packaged as a release.
Here is what I'm currently "testing":

$ cat disttest

DIR=disttestdir

rm -rf $DIR
svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/solr/trunk $DIR
cd $DIR
ant package -Dversion=1.0-incubating

rm -rf apache-solr-1.0-incubating
tar xvzf $DIR/dist/apache-solr-1.0-incubating.tgz

> +  * verify that all release artifacts unzip/untar into a single directory with the same name as the release
> +    (not inot hte current working directory)
> +  * all source code in "zip" based src releases should be processed by ant's `<fixcrlf>` for windows users ... scripts probably shouldn't get this treatment since they are only usefull to windows users running cygwin and cygwin doesn't like windows line endings.
> +  * remove deprecated code

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

Chris Hostetter-3

: > +  * add a STATUS file (what goes in it?)
:
: Where's the link that you saw this STATUS file?

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-status

: > +  * change src builds to include LICENSE, CHANGES, README, build.xml
:
: src.zip isn't packaged as a release.

hmm... i guess i'm confused then as to what our "release artifacts" are
going to be ... i assuemd we would have 4 artifacts, tgz and zip versions
of a src release, and tgz/zip versions of binary releases ... the binary
versions containing compiled jars/wars along with the source files, the
src releases containing everything needed to create the binary release.




-Hoss

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

Yonik Seeley-2
On 11/28/06, Chris Hostetter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> hmm... i guess i'm confused then as to what our "release artifacts" are
> going to be

Yes, we haven't had a discussion on that.
We also need to figure out a version number...

>... i assuemd we would have 4 artifacts, tgz and zip versions
> of a src release, and tgz/zip versions of binary releases ... the binary
> versions containing compiled jars/wars along with the source files, the
> src releases containing everything needed to create the binary release.

My thinking was that if the binary distributions already contain
everything (including all the source needed to re-build), we could
skip the extra set of source distributions.  The binary distribution
is only 7MB, and in the rare instance of someone without bandwidth for
that, they could always fall back to svn.

Or is there a policy or expectation of source-only releases along side
binary+source releases?

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

Yonik Seeley-2
In reply to this post by Chris Hostetter-3
On 11/28/06, Chris Hostetter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> : > +  * add a STATUS file (what goes in it?)
> :
> : Where's the link that you saw this STATUS file?
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-status

Ah, I believe that's the incubation status document.
I've been keeping that up-to-date:
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/solr.html

-Yonik
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

Chris Hostetter-3
In reply to this post by Yonik Seeley-2

: We also need to figure out a version number...

i would personally vote for "1.1" defining 1.0 as the initial code drop.
I have 3 reasosn for suggesting this...

  1) all of hte nightly builds so far have been calling themselves 1.0 (i
don't remember where it shows up, but it's because of the way we
have the ${version} property set in the build.xml)
  2) I have a Solr bias and know that Solr is more mature then a "1.0"
release name will imply.
  2) I have a CNET biased and have a hard time thinking of the first
release of "Apache Solr" as "Solr 1.0" ... but that's my own baggage,
I'll get over it.

: Or is there a policy or expectation of source-only releases along side
: binary+source releases?

i assumed there was, see the "Distribution Types" section as well as
"Source Distributions" and "Binary Distribution" just after it ... hmmm...
it says a Binary Distribution "may include source" ... i thought that the
ASF Liscence required that the source be included in any binary release?


-Hoss

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Solr Wiki] Update of "TaskList" by HossMan

Yonik Seeley-2
On 11/29/06, Chris Hostetter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> : We also need to figure out a version number...
>
> i would personally vote for "1.1" defining 1.0 as the initial code drop.

+1

> I have 3 reasosn for suggesting this...
>
>   1) all of hte nightly builds so far have been calling themselves 1.0 (i
> don't remember where it shows up, but it's because of the way we
> have the ${version} property set in the build.xml)
>   2) I have a Solr bias and know that Solr is more mature then a "1.0"
> release name will imply.
>   2) I have a CNET biased and have a hard time thinking of the first
> release of "Apache Solr" as "Solr 1.0" ... but that's my own baggage,
> I'll get over it.
>
> : Or is there a policy or expectation of source-only releases along side
> : binary+source releases?
>
> i assumed there was, see the "Distribution Types" section as well as
> "Source Distributions" and "Binary Distribution" just after it ... hmmm...
> it says a Binary Distribution "may include source" ... i thought that the
> ASF Liscence required that the source be included in any binary release?

Nope... that's a bit GPLish ;-)
AFAIK, one could license a project under the ASF license and *never*
provide the source.
And of course derivative works do not need to make the source or their
custom changes available... that's some of the business friendliness
of this LICENSE that makes companies willing to contribute to OS.

-Yonik