incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <antel...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Date Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:52:09 GMT
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, sebb <sebbaz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder <antelder@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the
Kafka list; it
>>>>>> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
>>>>>> previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker
lazy
>>>>>> 24 hour vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened.  I could be wrong.  If
it can then I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this release.  I'm sorry
it's had so many first and starts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that
Kafka
>>>>>> uses/ship NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting sebb and Kafka's champion (Chris C) discussed this in the
last vote
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes
X,
>>>>>> developed by X.org" Your notice file should only include notices
that you
>>>>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice
file
>>>>>> just for completeness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but
no shorter.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Having said that, we also don't have any jar like "NUnit" in the
release
>>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>>
>>>>>  B     ./bin/../clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading the license
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=license&r=2.5.9
>>>>>
>>>>> it seems to me that an acknowledgment  in the product documentation
is required.  Am I misreading their license?  (wouldn't be the first time)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember that license coming up before so the easiest way to
>>>> find out is to bring it up at legal-discuss@. A similar question was
>>>> raised in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 and the
>>>> conclusion there was it didn't have to be in the NOTICE. This is not
>>>> exactly the same but it is similar so maybe it would be ok for this
>>>> release could go ahead assuming its ok and raise a legal JIRA to
>>>> confirm that for the future?
>>>
>>> The tgz files are the product that's being distributed.  It's clear that the
NUnit license requires an acknowledgement somewhere in the product.
>>>
>>
>> Earlier you said nunit was missing from the NOTICE so thats what I was
>> replying about, but I think what you meant was that it was missing
>> from the LICENSE too right? This does appear to ship the nunit dll and
>> not mention that in the LICENSE file and that does seem like something
>> that needs to be fixed.
>
> In which case, any unnecessary entries in the NOTICE file should be
> removed at the same time please.
>

Right, and this is going to require yet another respin and its already
RC7 it might be worth posting back here with the SVN URLs to the
LICENSE/NOTICE files after the updates are done but before the new RC
has been made so we can help confirm it all looks ok. I also think you
could CC the new vote thread to general@ and run the dev and incubator
vote in parallel to save a bit of time.

   ...ant

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message