Uploaded image for project: 'Apache NiFi'
  1. Apache NiFi
  2. NIFI-410

Address findings from 0.0.2 release votes



    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Resolved
    • Priority: Trivial
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: None
    • Fix Version/s: 0.1.0
    • Component/s: Tools and Build
    • Labels:


      Ensure nifi-resources zip includes license/notice like all other binary release items:
      Billie Rinaldi in reviewing 0.0.2 noted that we don't have any license/notice information included in our nifi-resources.zip We can either not deploy it at all or we can add them in.
      [joewitt note: Done]

      Justin McClean:

      • No need for NOTICE to include PathCompiler. it's Apache licensed and has no NOTICE file so that information IMO should go in LICENSE. It would be valid legally to omit it altogether [1] but given the author is not the ASF is nice to acknowledge where it came from. Up to you what you want to do here but either way having a minimal NOTICE file is preferred.
        [joewitt note: done]
      • Consider adding apache to source artefact names for possible extra legal protection / branding
        [ joewitt note: Sent an email thread to the dev list to see if anyone feels strongly about this - no takers at this time]

      Aldrin Piri:

      • Signature matches. I did not see the .asc.sha1 and .asc.md5 files, but it
        may be my misunderstanding of what is being specified in the release guide
        [1] under "Validate the signatures of the sources artifact and of each of
        the hashes"
        [joewitt note: resolved]

      Ryan Blue:

      • One thing I'd fix for the next release is the exclusion of test resources from the RAT check. Wouldn't it be better to do that by file extension (e.g., */.json, */.avro) to avoid not checking files that could have license headers?
        [ comment from joewitt: I disagreed. Billie was supportive. Ryan was persistent and right. It has now been fixed along the lines of what he suggested. Good email thread on it]
      • I know convenience binaries aren't required to release – a release could just be the source tarball. But if you intend to publish convenience binaries, I think they should be included in the release candidate for verification and testing.
        [ comment from joewitt: updated release guide to include the provision of convenience binaries for review ]




            • Assignee:
              joewitt Joseph Witt
              joewitt Joseph Witt
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              2 Start watching this issue


              • Created: