incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Calcite 0.9.1 (incubating)
Date Mon, 13 Oct 2014 02:39:43 GMT
I just looked a bit a this release and I have a few questions.  I am
uncertain about how these issues should lead to a vote, but would tend
toward saying that this is OK for a first incubator release on condition
that these issues should be rectified in subsequent releases.

I would appreciate guidance from Marvin or other folk experienced in these
matters about this.

First, the signing key is present in SVN, but has not been uploaded to the
standard key-servers, nor has it been signed by anyone.  I don't think that
this has been made a failing criterion for releases yet, but it does appear
that Apache is moving towards requiring a web of trust around public keys
used for signing.  It would be good to rectify this by uploading a signed

Then, there is a DEPENDENCIES file which contains licensing information for
dependencies that are not included in the distribution.  That DEPENDENCIES
file contains information on many of the dependencies, but not all.  I
think that this file be deleted or made whole.

Also, I ran [mvn rat:check] and noted that it failed.  The reason for the
failure is relatively benign in that the objections are for files such as, some mark-down files and a file containing the textual name
of a class which do not have a recognizable license.  Adding the following
to the top-level pom will suppress these messages and allow rat to complete


On a more positive note, I reviewed the NOTICE and LICENSE and they are in
order for a pure apache source release that embeds no externally licensed
code.  These would have to be different in a binary release, of course, if
convenience jars are included, but there is no binary release at this time
so that is not yet an issue.

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Julian Hyde <> wrote:

> On Oct 11, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Justin Mclean <>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > +0 (binding) Will change to +1 once PPMC vote is clarified.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - vote may need another +1 (see below)
> > - hashes and signatures correct
> > - artefacts have incubating in name
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - LICENSE and NOTICE correct
> > - all source files have Apache headers
> > - no binary files in source package
> > - can compile from source
> > - tests pass
> >
> > Looking at the vote thread there is:
> > +2 binding
> > +3 unknown
> > +3 non binding
> >
> > So I'm not 100% sure if the release has the 3 required +1 votes from the
> PPMC. Can you confirm that this is the case. For next release could you
> summarise the vote result via a [VOTE][RESULT] email.
> Here is a link to the [VOTE] [RESULT] email. I sent the email very soon
> after the close of the PPMC vote but I did not include a link in the IPMC
> vote because after 2 hours it had still not appeared on
> and I ran out of patience.
> > Also any reason why the project seem to be hosted outside of Apache? [1]
> Is that link in the release, or did you find it via google? I don't think
> we still link to that site from the source code. Correct me if I'm wrong. I
> haven't taken the old site down because the new site still doesn't have
> necessary stuff like javadoc.
> > The team page list no members. [2]
> We're not trying to keep the old site up to date. The effort to create a
> new site is blocked
> because we want to transition from CMS to svnpubsub when we rename the site
> from to
> Julian
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

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