hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Please help with HBASE-14085
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2015 21:55:12 GMT
Something I realized (duh) while writing up a comment on HBASE-14085.

We don't have to resort to complete source-only releases, we could in
theory release source for everything and binary convenience artifacts for
everything except the hbase-shell module.


On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org> wrote:

> I'm not arguing that LEGAL-222 is a valid concern. I think we have a
> concern of at least equal weight, which is every single releasable code
> line is held up. We have blocked intention to make these release candidates:
>
> 0.98.14
> 1.0.2
> 1.1.2
> 1.2.0
>
> That's everything users would find useful, excepting 0.94, but see below
> regarding that code line.
>
> I think it's fine to try and communicate LEGAL-222 is a blocker of this
> magnitude and wait a bit longer.
>
> If we don't have a response soon, however, I propose we resume releases,
> providing only release source artifacts for the time being. We could
> back-fill binary convenience artifacts at a later time should we have a
> green light, if Maven/Nexus allows it. As a RM looking at how to get
> 0.98.14 and 1.0.2 out, I may simply do that soon and let the PMC judge the
> wisdom of a source only release under these circumstances by way of the
> usual release vote process.
>
> I went back to look our archives with an eye toward what we would have to
> pull if we are not allowed to redistribute the JRuby jar in convenience
> binaries. We did not start splitting out source only artifacts until 0.95.
> All releases 0.94.x and earlier ship as a single tarball. If you look at
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/hbase/, every release effectively back to
> the beginning of time is affected.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Source releases are fine, I think, since current guidance says that we can
>> have a runtime dependency on works under the license. Only redistribution
>> is in question AFAIK.
>>
>> I agree the situation is unsustainable, but I don't think it's any
>> different then if we were making convenience binaries with bits under the
>> Artistic license (aka "the terms as Perl itself"). While I'd love legal to
>> be more responsive I suspect their response to requests for expedience
>> would be "remove the questionable work".
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think it's clear enough that we can make source only releases.
>> Correct me
>> > if I am wrong.
>> >
>> > It should be unacceptable that our releases are indefinitely blocked.
>> This
>> > is not a sustainable position.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > For me, yes. the PMC duties say that we have to ensure things we
>> release
>> > > meet the foundation policies on licensing. That we were mistaken for a
>> > long
>> > > period of time is different than knowingly approving releases that
>> don't
>> > > meet the policy.
>> > >
>> > > I haven't seen much in the way of activity on either the ticket[1] or
>> on
>> > > the legal-discuss@asf public list[2]. Maybe a short note that makes
>> > clear
>> > > the PMC is blocking several releases due to the issue would help?
>> > >
>> > > [1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-222
>> > > [2]: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Andrew Purtell <
>> andrew.purtell@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > We have made many releases that include that fat JRuby jar. For
>> years.
>> > > > Would continuing releases until told otherwise be acceptable or
>> > > > unacceptable?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Aug 4, 2015, at 1:16 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I've got a more maintianable version ready to go up today, but
>> that
>> > > won't
>> > > > > help speed up LEGAL-222.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > anyone have some juice with the legal PMC or know a lawyer that
is
>> > > > willing
>> > > > > to weigh in?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Sean
>> > > > >> On Aug 4, 2015 2:56 PM, "Andrew Purtell" <apurtell@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> All releases are blocked on HBASE-14085. Let's get it resolved
>> this
>> > > > week so
>> > > > >> we can resume releases.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >> Best regards,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>   - Andy
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back.
-
>> Piet
>> > > Hein
>> > > > >> (via Tom White)
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Sean
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> >    - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sean
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
>    - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

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