[feedhenry-dev] RFC: MCP-standalone Release Process

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Gerard Ryan <gryan at redhat.com> wrote:

> Leigh Griffin <lgriffin at redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Just want to throw it out there that the XML Licenser is going to be a
> > requirement here. It's not a painful step in the above that you described
> > but it's a step nonetheless. So if our code is anything outside of Java
> > (maven based) or Node.js we might need to consider building a tool to
> > create the licensing information or reach out wider to find a team
> already
> > in flight on it.
>
> Would that just be needed for the eventual Red Hat productization of it,
> or is it also needed for the open source releases here?
>

OpenSource communities do that too, here a few examples of our own:
* https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/pull/4491
* https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/937

the second example is inspired by the release process of the ASF, requiring
"LICENSE", "DEPENDENCIES" and "NOTICE" file as part of the (binary)
artifact.
and a first step into what EAP does (for product)


>
> In any case, I'd expect that other projects that Red Hat productizes
> downstream, that are also Go projects, would also have this requirement,
> right (e.g. OpenShift)?


yep, I was wondering that too, what they have


> Whatever they're using, would ideally be reused
> here, rather than each of us creating our own way of doing it.
>

+1000

I started a little thread on the apb repo:
https://github.com/ansibleplaybookbundle/ansible-playbook-bundle/issues/154



>
> _______________________________________________
> feedhenry-dev mailing list
> feedhenry-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/feedhenry-dev
>



-- 
Project lead AeroGear.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/feedhenry-dev/attachments/20171027/0efbcc70/attachment.htm>