accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo 1.6.0-RC4
Date Mon, 28 Apr 2014 19:24:23 GMT
Forking thread for discussion.

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > The good:
> >
> > * Verified all signatures and checksums.
> > * Ran continuous ingest with binary artifact + custom built native maps.
> >
> >
> > The issues, but not enough to vote against:
> >
> > * Encountered ACCUMULO-2741.
> > * Encountered ACCUMULO-2742.
> > * Source artifact missing .gitignore
> > ** This has been discussed, and I'm voting for precedent here. We can
> agree
> > to disagree, and if this vote passes then a new precedent will have been
> > set.
> >
> >
> > The bad:
> >
> > * CHANGES file contains changes for 1.5.0 and 1.4.0 (BAD)
> > ** Past discussion here: http://markmail.org/message/ulvovup36uaa2cav
> > ** It seems like we agreed to only include changes from the current major
> > release line, but that is not 100% clear.
>
> My understanding from that prior conversation is that, with the way we
> use JIRA to mark things as fixed in the latest major release and
> enumerating the fix versions to denote all the bugfix releases in
> which it was fixed, meant that we can cover the entire CHANGE history
> (after a certain point) by including only the major releases, and the
> bugfixes since the last major one. Therefore, since this is a major
> release, I included the 1.4.0 and 1.5.0 changes also. Anything fixed
> in 1.5.1 would also be marked as fixed for 1.6.0 (if it still
> applied), so the 1.6.0 changes include those and 1.5.1 is not needed
> to list separately. This was not done for 1.5.0, because we hadn't
> discussed it then.
>
> It seems you came to a different understanding from that conversation.
> If I understand you correctly, it would mean we should only include
> 1.6.0 changes? If that's the case, do you think a -1 is warranted for
> including more than necessary (1.4.0 and 1.5.0)?
>
> Yes, my understanding was that only 1.6.0 changes would be present. Yes, I
believe that this warrants a -1.


>  >
> > * Missing licence headers:
> > ** README
> > ** conf/examples/crypto/readme.txt
> > ** test/compat/japi-compliance/README
> > ** test/system/continuous/ScaleTest.odp
> > **
> > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/HDFS_WAL_states.odg
> >
> > **
> > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/HDFS_WAL_states.pdf
> >
> > **
> > docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/tablet_states.odg
> >
> > ** docs/src/main/latex/common/state_diagrams/tablet_states.pdf
>
> The rat check plugin typically ignores README/NOTICE/LICENSE files as
> category "N" (for Notices). That's why it ignored the
> japi-compliance/README and conf/examples/crypto/readme.txt. I think
> it's expected that the LICENSE file covers them. At the very least, I
> don't think they contain anything copyrightable that would necessitate
> a license. But, for consistency, maybe we should add it anyway? I'm
> not sure that consistency argument warrants blockage (for me), though.
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions

The README has plenty of intellectual creativity in its content, and is
therefore subject to copyright claims. It could be argued that the other
two README files are short enough to not have copyright-able content, but
it doesn't sound like that's the case you want to make.

There is also lengthy discussion on
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-114 but again, that is focused
on small, non-creative files. Our README does not fall into that category.


> The rest were ignored because the rat check does not check binary
> files. These files should be covered by the LICENSE/NOTICE files.
> Binary document files may or may not be capable of supporting license
> metadata, in general, but I think the coverage by the LICENSE/NOTICE
> files is sufficient. However, we can do additional things with these
> files. The ScaleTest.odp could probably be converted to markdown, with
> a license header. The state_diagrams are not used anywhere in the
> LaTeX generation (leftover from old developer manual?), and could
> probably be deleted or moved to the website or wiki, if they are
> needed at all. I'm not sure which option is best. However, again, I'd
> consider the LICENSE/NOTICE files sufficient, so as not to block,
> especially since they didn't block any previous release (presumably
> because LICENSE/NOTICE covered them), and they've been around awhile.
>

I do not agree that "in general, coverage by LICENSE files is sufficient.
If that were the case, then we would not need to put headers on our source
files, on our markdown files, on our example configuration files, etc...

I also do not accept "they've been around for a while and nobody noticed
it" as a reason to continue to ignore them. Either they are a violation, or
they are not. This is not to say that we have been perfect in the past, but
instead we correct mistakes when they are brought to attention.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message