You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@heron.apache.org by Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> on 2020/01/16 22:24:16 UTC
[DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Hi,
I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating binary
release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the size of
the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does anyone
have any knowledge on this potential issue?
- Josh
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Dave. This is super helpful.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:13 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Infra had three concerns which roughly are:
>
> (1) The aggregate size of the binary release. There are rules about
> releases larger than 1GB which put pressure on the mirror providers.
> Warning to Infra is required prior to putting these packages on Apache
> Distribution servers.
>
> (2) Apache binary releases are termed unofficial conveniences provided by
> the community which follow normal Apache Release Policy. The question is
> what packaging is helpful for Heron’s users? The tar.gz question is the
> correct one.
>
> (3) Since the binary packages are large have we checked that all the
> included licenses are correct?
>
> Let’s work out (2) and (3) before rechecking about (1)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 6:48 PM, Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Part of the Heron binary release is more than just the client artifacts
> > that would be loaded into Maven Central. For example if you look at an
> old
> > release prior to Heron being donated to Apache we have install scripts
> and
> > tarred binaries for use in different operating systems. You can view them
> > here -> https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/releases/tag/0.17.8.
> > Where would be go about hosting these install scripts and tar.gz files?
> I
> > think each of them are ~500MB in size today. My initial thoughts (for
> > simplicity) are that we could ignore the tar.gz files containing binaries
> > and just offer install scripts and one supported docker image. If
> binaries
> > are needed for manual installation I think people could just compile
> parts
> > of Heron at that point. I'll look into the licensing/policy issues on
> the
> > Heron docker container in the meantime.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:24 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The ASF as a whole is rather conservative in the sense of being slow to
> >> change.
> >>
> >> Maven Central for JAR packaging has been around for over a decade AND is
> >> supported by Apache projects.
> >>
> >> Docker is comparatively new and there is less policy around it. There is
> >> some, but perhaps not well documented.
> >>
> >> I think we should evaluate the docker file and see what licensing/policy
> >> questions there are. We can then ask the VP, Legal Affairs on
> >> legal-discuss@apache.org
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >>>> On Jan 17, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure
> >> why
> >>> one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are
> both
> >>> compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
> >>> time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better
> >> understanding
> >>> of the differences in the two.
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> >>>>
> >>>> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as
> installer,
> >>>> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> >> tracker,
> >>>> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> >>>>
> >>>> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling
> >> all
> >>>> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> >>>> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run
> >> the
> >>>> jobs.
> >>>>
> >>>> I hope it is more clear this time.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences
> between
> >>>> the
> >>>>> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
> >>>> artifact (
> >>>>> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
> >>>> something?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
> >> all
> >>>>>> license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> >>>> can't
> >>>>>> have binary release. :(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> >>>> binary
> >>>>>>> release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
> >>>> size
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.
> Does
> >>>>>> anyone
> >>>>>>> have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>.
Infra had three concerns which roughly are:
(1) The aggregate size of the binary release. There are rules about releases larger than 1GB which put pressure on the mirror providers. Warning to Infra is required prior to putting these packages on Apache Distribution servers.
(2) Apache binary releases are termed unofficial conveniences provided by the community which follow normal Apache Release Policy. The question is what packaging is helpful for Heron’s users? The tar.gz question is the correct one.
(3) Since the binary packages are large have we checked that all the included licenses are correct?
Let’s work out (2) and (3) before rechecking about (1)
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 6:48 PM, Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Part of the Heron binary release is more than just the client artifacts
> that would be loaded into Maven Central. For example if you look at an old
> release prior to Heron being donated to Apache we have install scripts and
> tarred binaries for use in different operating systems. You can view them
> here -> https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/releases/tag/0.17.8.
> Where would be go about hosting these install scripts and tar.gz files? I
> think each of them are ~500MB in size today. My initial thoughts (for
> simplicity) are that we could ignore the tar.gz files containing binaries
> and just offer install scripts and one supported docker image. If binaries
> are needed for manual installation I think people could just compile parts
> of Heron at that point. I'll look into the licensing/policy issues on the
> Heron docker container in the meantime.
>
> - Josh
>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:24 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> The ASF as a whole is rather conservative in the sense of being slow to
>> change.
>>
>> Maven Central for JAR packaging has been around for over a decade AND is
>> supported by Apache projects.
>>
>> Docker is comparatively new and there is less policy around it. There is
>> some, but perhaps not well documented.
>>
>> I think we should evaluate the docker file and see what licensing/policy
>> questions there are. We can then ask the VP, Legal Affairs on
>> legal-discuss@apache.org
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>> On Jan 17, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure
>> why
>>> one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are both
>>> compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
>>> time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better
>> understanding
>>> of the differences in the two.
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
>>>>
>>>> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
>>>> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
>> tracker,
>>>> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
>>>>
>>>> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling
>> all
>>>> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
>>>> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run
>> the
>>>> jobs.
>>>>
>>>> I hope it is more clear this time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
>>>> the
>>>>> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
>>>> artifact (
>>>>> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
>>>> something?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
>> all
>>>>>> license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
>>>> can't
>>>>>> have binary release. :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
>>>> binary
>>>>>>> release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
>>>> size
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does
>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> have any knowledge on this potential issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>.
Hi,
Part of the Heron binary release is more than just the client artifacts
that would be loaded into Maven Central. For example if you look at an old
release prior to Heron being donated to Apache we have install scripts and
tarred binaries for use in different operating systems. You can view them
here -> https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/releases/tag/0.17.8.
Where would be go about hosting these install scripts and tar.gz files? I
think each of them are ~500MB in size today. My initial thoughts (for
simplicity) are that we could ignore the tar.gz files containing binaries
and just offer install scripts and one supported docker image. If binaries
are needed for manual installation I think people could just compile parts
of Heron at that point. I'll look into the licensing/policy issues on the
Heron docker container in the meantime.
- Josh
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 7:24 PM Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The ASF as a whole is rather conservative in the sense of being slow to
> change.
>
> Maven Central for JAR packaging has been around for over a decade AND is
> supported by Apache projects.
>
> Docker is comparatively new and there is less policy around it. There is
> some, but perhaps not well documented.
>
> I think we should evaluate the docker file and see what licensing/policy
> questions there are. We can then ask the VP, Legal Affairs on
> legal-discuss@apache.org
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 17, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
> >
> > Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure
> why
> > one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are both
> > compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
> > time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better
> understanding
> > of the differences in the two.
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> >>
> >> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> >> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> tracker,
> >> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> >>
> >> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling
> all
> >> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> >> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run
> the
> >> jobs.
> >>
> >> I hope it is more clear this time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
> >> the
> >>> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
> >> artifact (
> >>> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
> >> something?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
> all
> >>>> license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> >> can't
> >>>> have binary release. :(
> >>>>
> >>>> That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> >> binary
> >>>>> release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
> >> size
> >>>> of
> >>>>> the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does
> >>>> anyone
> >>>>> have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Josh
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Dave Fisher <wa...@comcast.net>.
The ASF as a whole is rather conservative in the sense of being slow to change.
Maven Central for JAR packaging has been around for over a decade AND is supported by Apache projects.
Docker is comparatively new and there is less policy around it. There is some, but perhaps not well documented.
I think we should evaluate the docker file and see what licensing/policy questions there are. We can then ask the VP, Legal Affairs on legal-discuss@apache.org
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 17, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>
> Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
> one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are both
> compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
> time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better understanding
> of the differences in the two.
>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
>>
>> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
>> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI, tracker,
>> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
>>
>> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
>> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
>> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
>> jobs.
>>
>> I hope it is more clear this time.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
>> the
>>> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
>> artifact (
>>> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
>> something?
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
>>>> license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
>> can't
>>>> have binary release. :(
>>>>
>>>> That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
>> binary
>>>>> release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
>> size
>>>> of
>>>>> the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does
>>>> anyone
>>>>> have any knowledge on this potential issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>.
Hey Nick,
The licensing issues are outlined in this email thread from our last vote:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201911.mbox/%3C99E443FF-01D7-47C3-9AA0-7F5F1848686E%40classsoftware.com%3E
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:46 PM Nicholas Nezis <ni...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Could someone describe what the licensing issue is? I thought work was
> already done to include the various license references.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:54 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah. Technically artifacts contains the dependency libraries tool. Maybe
> > artifacts are more urgent and necessary than the executables. Afterall
> > executables are convenient to users but not required in the Apache
> release
> > process.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure
> why
> > > one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are
> both
> > > compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
> > > time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better
> > understanding
> > > of the differences in the two.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> > > >
> > > > The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as
> installer,
> > > > which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> > > tracker,
> > > > etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> > > >
> > > > Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling
> > all
> > > > the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build
> their
> > > > jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run
> > the
> > > > jobs.
> > > >
> > > > I hope it is more clear this time.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences
> > between
> > > > the
> > > > > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
> > > > artifact (
> > > > > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
> > > > something?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before
> clear
> > > all
> > > > > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but
> it
> > > > can't
> > > > > > have binary release. :(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <
> josh@joshfischer.io>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> > > > binary
> > > > > > > release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about
> > the
> > > > size
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.
> > > Does
> > > > > > anyone
> > > > > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Josh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Nicholas Nezis <ni...@gmail.com>.
Could someone describe what the licensing issue is? I thought work was
already done to include the various license references.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:54 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah. Technically artifacts contains the dependency libraries tool. Maybe
> artifacts are more urgent and necessary than the executables. Afterall
> executables are convenient to users but not required in the Apache release
> process.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>
> > Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
> > one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are both
> > compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
> > time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better
> understanding
> > of the differences in the two.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> > >
> > > The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> > > which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> > tracker,
> > > etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> > >
> > > Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling
> all
> > > the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> > > jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run
> the
> > > jobs.
> > >
> > > I hope it is more clear this time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences
> between
> > > the
> > > > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
> > > artifact (
> > > > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
> > all
> > > > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> > > can't
> > > > > have binary release. :(
> > > > >
> > > > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> > > binary
> > > > > > release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about
> the
> > > size
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.
> > Does
> > > > > anyone
> > > > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Josh
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
Yeah. Technically artifacts contains the dependency libraries tool. Maybe
artifacts are more urgent and necessary than the executables. Afterall
executables are convenient to users but not required in the Apache release
process.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
> Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
> one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are both
> compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
> time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better understanding
> of the differences in the two.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> >
> > The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> > which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> tracker,
> > etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> >
> > Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
> > the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> > jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
> > jobs.
> >
> > I hope it is more clear this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
> > the
> > > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
> > artifact (
> > > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
> > something?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
> all
> > > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> > can't
> > > > have binary release. :(
> > > >
> > > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> > binary
> > > > > release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
> > size
> > > > of
> > > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.
> Does
> > > > anyone
> > > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > > >
> > > > > - Josh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>.
Gotcha. I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
one would be allowed over the other. At the end of the day they are both
compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation. I'll take some
time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better understanding
of the differences in the two.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
>
> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI, tracker,
> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
>
> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
> jobs.
>
> I hope it is more clear this time.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
> the
> > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven
> artifact (
> > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing
> something?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> can't
> > > have binary release. :(
> > >
> > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> binary
> > > > release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
> size
> > > of
> > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does
> > > anyone
> > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > >
> > > > - Josh
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI, tracker,
etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
jobs.
I hope it is more clear this time.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between the
> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven artifact (
> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing something?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it can't
> > have binary release. :(
> >
> > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating binary
> > > release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the size
> > of
> > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does
> > anyone
> > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > >
> > > - Josh
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io>.
I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between the
terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases". Wouldn't a maven artifact (
java jar ) be considered a binary release as well? Am I missing something?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it can't
> have binary release. :(
>
> That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating binary
> > release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the size
> of
> > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does
> anyone
> > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> >
> > - Josh
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release
Posted by Ning Wang <wa...@gmail.com>.
I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it can't
have binary release. :(
That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer <jo...@joshfischer.io> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating binary
> release. Before we start I remember there were concerns about the size of
> the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra. Does anyone
> have any knowledge on this potential issue?
>
> - Josh
>