distributedlog-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Flavio Junqueira <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release 0.4.0, release candidate #2
Date Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:18:00 GMT
Given that there has been no further feedback on the LICENSE/NOTICE point below, perhaps we
should create a couple of issues to track them so that we can revisit before graduation? They
should not block this release, but we need to do some due diligence there.

-Flavio

> On 24 Jan 2017, at 02:52, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Ping?
> 
> If there is no other strong objections here, I'd like to conclude the votes
> and proceed the remaining steps for the release.
> 
> - Sijie
> 
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Flavio Junqueira <fpj@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:42, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Flavio,
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org <mailto:
>>> sijie@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 18, 2017 10:37 AM, "Sijie Guo" <sijie@apache.org <mailto:
>>> sijie@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 17, 2017 2:58 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <fpj@apache.org <mailto:
>>> fpj@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>> +1, I have checked the following:
>>>> 
>>>> - Built both 2.10 and 2.11 from source (skipped tests)
>>>> - Checksums and signatures
>>>> - NOTICE and LICENSE
>>>> - Rat
>>>> 
>>>> Questions:
>>>> 1- I'm wondering if the text about Hadoop in NOTICE is necessary. How
>>> did you guys end up including it?
>>>> 
>>>> Ah, I need to check that. Can't remember why it was brought in right
>>> now.
>>>> 
>>>> I think this because we ported one class from Hadoop
>>> "TestTimedOutTestsListener" - we used it for dump information when the
>>> tests timed out. do you see any concerns here? what is your suggestion?
>>> 
>>> I'm not particularly concerned, but I'm wondering if this is really
>>> needed in NOTICE, simply because the guidance we have from ASF is that we
>>> should change the NOTICE file only when strictly necessary. In particular,
>>> this part:
>>> 
>>> NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required notifications
>>> which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE or the presence of
>>> licensing information embedded within the bundled dependency. Aside from
>>> Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own, it is
>>> uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE.
>>> 
>>> says that such changes aren't necessary for Apache-licensed dependencies,
>>> but in this case, it is not really a dependency, you copied a file into
>>> your code, so I'm not sure. Perhaps one of the other mentors have some
>>> insight here.
>>> 
>> 
>> Henry, Chris,
>> 
>> Any thoughts about the NOTICE file here?
>> 
>> Liang,
>> 
>> Since you added the hadoop part in the NOTICE file, can you comment what
>> was your experiences about the NOTICE file here?
>> 
>> - Sijie
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> commit ea3c1143f9e2718d0d86e8b1c8f3a7e51ac19c4d
>>>> Author: xieliang <xieliang007@gmail.com <mailto:xieliang007@gmail.com>>
>>>> Date:   Wed Jan 4 16:09:01 2017 -0800
>>>> 
>>>>    DL-165: Add TestTimedOutTestsListener to dump timed out cases
>>> thread dump
>>>> 
>>>>    Author: xieliang <xieliang007@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> xieliang007@gmail.com>>
>>>> 
>>>>    Reviewers: Leigh Stewart <lstewart@apache.org <mailto:
>>> lstewart@apache.org>>
>>>> 
>>>>    Closes #91 from xieliang/DL-165-TimedOutTestsListene
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2- The tgz bundles do not include any jar directly, so there is no real
>>> concern about bundling the bits from other projects that could require more
>>> sections in the NOTICE file, is it right?
>>>> 
>>>> I am clear about this part. Any principles to follow in Apache?
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry typo => not clear about
>>>> 
>>>> Can you comment more on this part?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> This comment is based on this:
>>> 
>>> LICENSE and NOTICE must always be tailored to the content of the specific
>>> distribution they reside within. Dependencies which are not included in the
>>> distribution MUST NOT be added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE and
>>> NOTICE are concerned, only bundled bits matter.
>>> 
>>> I didn't see anything specific that called my attention, and I'm doing
>>> due diligence and asking.
>>> 
>>> Both paragraphs I copied are from this page:
>>> 
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
>>> 
>>> -Flavio
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -Flavio
>>>> 
>>>>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 17:12, Leigh Stewart <lstewart@twitter.com.INVALID>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Jon Derrick <
>>> jonathan.derrickk@gmail.com <mailto:jonathan.derrickk@gmail.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> LGTM. compiled the source packages and ran dbench. the license files
>>> look
>>>>>> good.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - jd
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo <sijie@apache.org
>>> <mailto:sijie@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
>>> 0.4.0,
>>>>>>> as follows:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>> comments)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>>> includes:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   * JIRA release notes [1],
>>>>>>>   * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>>>>> dist.apache.org <http://dist.apache.org/>
>>>>>>> [2],
>>>>>>>   * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository
>>>>>> [3][4],
>>>>>>>   * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.11" (for scala 2.11)
>>> and
>>>>>>> "v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.10" (for scala 2.10) [5][6],
>>>>>>>   * website pull request listing the release [7] and publishing
>>> the API
>>>>>>> reference manual.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A simple instruction for validation the source and binary packages.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> - source package: building the package with "*mvn clean
>>> apache-rat:check
>>>>>>> package findbugs:check -DskipTests*"
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>>> majority
>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Sijie
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa <
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa>?
>>>>>>> projectId=12320620&version=12337980
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/distributed
>>> log/0.4.0- <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/distribute
>>> dlog/0.4.0->
>>>>>>> incubating-RC2/
>>>>>>> [3]
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ <
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/>
>>>>>>> orgapachedistributedlog-1003/
>>>>>>> [4]
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ <
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/>
>>>>>>> orgapachedistributedlog-1004/
>>>>>>> [5]
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/ <
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/>
>>>>>>> v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.11
>>>>>>> [6]
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/ <
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/>
>>>>>>> v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.10
>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/109
<
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/109>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - jderrick
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message