For the Java release, it doesn't need to do a lot of things for the
binary release.
Most java projects I know take care of the binary release kit when
doing the release as well.
I highly recommend we do the binary release of the doris connector this time.
BTW, it could be a good experience for Do
Hi Willem, Kris:
Thanks for your answers.
So I understand that essentially we are still doing a "source release" rather
than a "binary release".
According to this understanding, we should not need to provide a separate
License file for the "binary release".
And the jars that end up in the maven
I understand what you mean, if we need to package to maven, npmjs, pypi and
other platforms, we can publish it according to the rules of this platform, no
voting is required, but we must ensure that our source code is voted.
And if we want to release our own binary package, we must vote accordin
+1
发件人: tinker
发送时间: 2022年2月11日 14:23:41
收件人: dev@doris.apache.org
主题: Re: [Discuss] Invite external collaborators with the triage role on GitHub
+1.
id: tinke
On 02/11/2022 14:05，Jianliang Qi wrote：
I'd like to join.
id: qidaye
Jianliang Qi
On Fri, Feb
Hi Kirs:
Our purpose is to release this flink-connector in maven repo. It is more easy
for user to use it. I don't know if this is considered a binary release?
The release in [1] is indeed source code only, I wonder if it is released to
maven, do we still need to put binary here as well? If yes
hi,
I want to confirm if we really need to release the binary package, I checked
the official documentation [1] and it seems we don't need to release the binary
package, the source package is enough.
Also this release [2] looks like you are only releasing the source package.
[1]
https://dori
let me resolve this:)
Best wishes！
CalvinKirs
On 2022/02/16 12:42:50 Willem Jiang wrote:
> The LICENSE-dependencies.txt file doesn't include the copyright
> information of MIT and BSD.
> I think we need to include those LICENSE file in the binary kit.
>
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Twitter: willemjian
The LICENSE-dependencies.txt file doesn't include the copyright
information of MIT and BSD.
I think we need to include those LICENSE file in the binary kit.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:34 PM 陈明雨 wrote:
>
> Hi Willem:
> Thanks for you suggestion.
Hi Willem:
Thanks for you suggestion.
>>BTW, for License compliance, if we do the binary release, we need to
>>have a different license file for the binary kit.
I refered to [1]. It says that we need a separete LICENSE file for binary
release. Because the release pulls in and bundle additional dep
Hi all,
Sorry that vote need to be cancelled. Because we need to modify the way to
build from release tag.
--
此致！Best Regards
陈明雨 Mingyu Chen
Email:
chenmin...@apache.org
At 2022-02-16 16:33:07, "Willem Jiang" wrote:
>-1.
>I tried to build the binary from the source and found out the c
-1.
I tried to build the binary from the source and found out the current
source release needs to setup the scala and flink version from
environment variables.
It will cause some problems if the environment variables are not set.
Please verify the maven release with some sample applications.
I thin
Hi all,
As requested by IPMC, there should be a check list for checking the release.
Here is my check:
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] Source code artifacts have correct names matching the current release.
[x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for Do
12 matches
Mail list logo
