asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Heri Ramampiaro <heri...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache AsterixDB (0.8.8-incubating) and Hyracks (0.2.17-incubating) (RC1)
Date Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:05:40 GMT
+1 — everything works for me, too:-)

-heri

> On Feb 17, 2016, at 01:25, Mike Carey <dtabass@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1  --  the binary works for me :-)
> 
> On 2/16/16 3:19 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
>> On 2016-02-11 03:28, Ian Maxon wrote:
>> 
>>> Please vote
>>> [ ] +1 release these packages as Apache AsterixDB 0.8.8-incubating and
>>> Apache AsterixDB Hyracks 0.2.17-incubating
>>> [ ] 0 No strong feeling either way
>>> [ ] -1 do not release one or both packages because ...
>>> 
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>> Besides what already was reported earlier by Till I have a few additional
>> comments but also none that need to hold off this release:
>> 
>> * The Copyright year in the sources root NOTICE files (and both
>>  *-source-release.zip files) need updating from 2015 to 2016.
>> 
>> * apache-asterixdb-0.8.8-incubating-source-release.zip, LICENSE file:
>> - bottle.py in asterix-examples/src/main/resources/admaql101-demo folder is
>>  also contained in the sibling tweetbook-demo, so should likewise be 'linked'
>>  in the LICENSE file.
>> 
>> * asterix-installer-0.8.8-incubating-binary-assembly.zip, NOTICE file, and
>>  asterix-server-0.8.8-incubating-binary-assembly.zip, NOTICE file:
>> - First things first, this looks very good, and definitely good enough for now.
>> - While many/most bundled artifacts are listed and attributed, a few stand out
>>  to be missing, like all repo/hadoop* artifacts (23x).
>>  I also noticed however that none of these hadoop artifacts have a NOTICE nor a
>>  LICENSE file bundled themselves, while of course they should as have them
>>  as ASF released artifacts. Not a good example :-(
>>  That said, many/common 3rd party non-ASF libraries don't bundle a L/N file,
>>  but still we need to make sure they are properly attributed in either or
>>  both of our LICENSE or NOTICE.
>>  This means we'll have to do manual digging/hunting what their possible
>>  license and notice conditions are etc. No license means *off limits* to use.
>>  This is also where attempts to automate/generate ASF LICENSE and NOTICE files
>>  always end up failing...
>>  Anyway, this is not a blocker for sure, just something which can be
>>  fixed with a future release.
>>  Furthermore, with respect to (only) merging other ASF project(s)
>>  "Name + Copyright Year" from their NOTICE, this is current under debate if
>>  it actually is needed or not, see [1].
>>  For the record: I'm not convinced yet this isn't needed and inclined to
>>  reopen [1], once I've some spare time to discuss this further.
>> 
>> Concerning my earlier feedback about empty artifacts, to which you replied:
>> >> * Not needed (empty) artifacts (also their -sources variants).
>> >>     Consider skipping these through maven-deploy-plugin configuration:
>> >> - hyracks-documentation-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-integration-tests-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-bloomfilter-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-btree-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-lsm-btree-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-lsm-common-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-lsm-invertedindex-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-lsm-rtree-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-am-rtree-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - hyracks-storage-common-test-0.2.17-incubating.jar
>> >> - asterix-doc-0.8.8-incubating.jar
>> >> - asterix-server-0.8.8-incubating.jar
>> >>
>> >
>> > All of these except asterix-server are not deployed now. (along with
>> > some others that were less than necessary). The only one in that list
>> > that is still deployed is asterix-server, as I wasn't quite sure how to
>> > not deploy the jar but still deploy the assembled binary.
>> 
>> For asterix-server I think this can be fixed by using <packaging>pom</packaging>
>> instead of default <packaging>jar</packaging>?
>> 
>> Overall hats off for the impressive quality delivered!
>> 
>> Kind regard, Ate
>> 
>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-234
> 


Mime
View raw message