ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>
Subject [CLOSE][VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 release
Date Sat, 28 Mar 2015 03:03:29 GMT
Closing this vote until the LGPL issue is addressed (I know Valentin is
working on it now).

D.

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org> wrote:

> Actually, I think I have to revoke my earlier +1. Here's why - and I
> appreciate Brane's insisting on this point: even if the source release
> doesn't
> include any unfriendly licensed code, there's no way right now for anyone
> to
> build an (L)GPL-free binary artifact. Hence, the moment binaries are put up
> for download all issues mentioned earlier will hit us.
>
> Yes, it means that if someone chooses to get binaries from Ignite's ASF
> website and wants to use hibernate - he will need to do an extra step and
> get
> these jars elsewhere (from a 3rd party entity or else). And that's in fact
> why
> I was speculating that it might be useful to have a script as a part of the
> release to download them if a user wants to. Too bad there are software
> licenses incompatible with each other. That's a fact we need to find a way
> to
> deal with.
>
> That said - I don't see any issues with the source artifact - that's just
> build system that need a bit of tweaking. I am happy to help with the build
> system changes, if you need my help at this point.
>
> Thanks,
>   Cos
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:32AM, Branko ─îibej wrote:
> > On 28.03.2015 01:14, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > Cos,
> > >
> > > My comments are below.
> > >
> > > However, can we proceed with the vote for this release and resolve it
> in
> > > the next release? The RC3, which is officially downloadable release
> from
> > > Ignite website also has this issue, among with some others, which we
> are
> > > actually addressing with this 1.0.0 release.
> >
> > Yes, and if I'd even considered that you'd ignore my mails[1] on the
> > topic of not bundling optional dependencies and not building them from
> > the source package unless the user explicitly requests them, then RC3
> > would not be released because I'd have looked at the build artefacts.
> >
> > So that's a -1 from me for this package until the build scripts are
> > changed so that optional dependencies, especially those requiring LGPL,
> > do *not* get built unless the user explicitly requires them; and the
> > devnotes docs warn that if these optional libs are used, the
> > distribution rights for the binaries are different than expected.
> >
> > Any individual or commercial entity can publish binaries with these
> > optional dependencies enabled, as long as they *tell* people that the
> > Apache License does not control the distribution rights for those
> > binaries. It's fine to have a list of such binary distributors on the
> > web site. But we must not make such binaries available from ASF
> > infrastructure or mirrors.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-ignite-dev/201503.mbox/%3C54FFCD68.6080901%40apache.org%3E
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Another topic that I'd like to address before this gets into the final
> > >> release. During the voting on RC3 (or even before) we have discussed
> that
> > >> bundling LGPL libs is a bad idea as it really _changes_ the
> distribution
> > >> license for the artifacts. Yet, I see that RC3 is (and perhaps 1.0
> will be
> > >> as
> > >> well) including some LGPL and EPL bits (Hibernate is one of the
> examples).
> > >>
> > > We can host our optional LGPL modules at apache-extras:
> > > http://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html
> > > However, EPL is OK: https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-b
> > >
> > >
> > >> I think those shouldn't be a part of binaries posted on ASF dist. As
> an
> > >> alternative, anyone providing their own binary archives can do it from
> > >> their
> > >> own servers. It would be a good practice though to warn users of what
> they
> > >> are
> > >> getting into using the binaries under the aforementioned licenses.
> > >>
> > >> Am I making any sense? Thanks,
> > >>   Cos
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:13PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > >>> Guys, to start with:
> > >>>  - the format of md5 and sha1 files aren't Unix formats. It suppose
> to be
> > >>>
> > >>> hash    file-name
> > >>>
> > >>> e.g.
> > >>>
> > >>> % md5sum /etc/hosts
> > >>> aa2af9fea577aaedb79056917a6453a9  /etc/hosts
> > >>>
> > >>> % sha1sum /etc/hosts
> > >>> ee5a6f3e4a3c109114d236c90ca382397fb998fe  /etc/hosts
> > >>>
> > >>> When sum-files have this format you can do things like
> > >>>     % md5sum -c file-name.md5
> > >>>
> > >>> and get your file validated automatically. Let's fix it, please.
> > >>>
> > >>> Cos
> > >>>
> > >>> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 02:07PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > >>>> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> > >>>>   http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got
for
> > >> RC3:
> > >>>> 1. Fixed jdk8.backport wrong license issue.
> > >>>> 2. Fixed NOTICE.txt according to comments from IPMC.
> > >>>> 3. Fixed LICENSE.txt according to comments from IPMC.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> To build a binary release from source run:
> > >>>>     mvn clean package -DskipTests
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are
> > >> available
> > >>>> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Please start voting.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0
> > >>>> 0 - don't care either way
> > >>>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.0 (explain why)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> D.
> >
>

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