incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3
Date Fri, 11 May 2018 17:42:27 GMT
I'm fine with it then, consider my vote a +1

On Fri, May 11, 2018, 1:32 PM Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> > On May 11, 2018, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that we have confirmed there are Cat-X files in the
> > release.  I don't believe we can approve a release going out with known
> > Cat-X files.
> >
> > Justin, Dave, thoughts?  I'd be happy to switch my vote if there's a
> shared
> > understanding.
>
> My thoughts are:
> (1) Incubating podlings have a DISCLAIMER for a reason. I would suggest
> that the podling share that there are minimal licensing issues that anyone
> planning on depending on this release in a commercial setting should be
> aware.
> (2) I am confident that these will be removed and then brought brought
> back once licensed properly.
> (3) We took a long time reviewing this and I would rather have the podling
> move ahead.
> (4) The Incubator has been lenient on first release in the past.
>
> If others disagree then please say so by Monday.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:11 AM Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The only copyrights in LICENSE are related to BSD, W3C, and OGF
> >> licenses. My understanding is that it is optional to add the copyrights
> >> of these permissive licenses to the NOTICE [1]. And it's actually
> >> preferred to not add them so as to keep the NOTICE as small as possible.
> >> Maybe my understanding of this is wrong?
> >>
> >> Regarding RPM diff, I've looked at the RPM vs tgz daffodil jars and the
> >> internal class files all have the same md5sum. Doing a binary diff, it
> >> looks like the only differences is the file modification time of the
> >> class files--the contents are the same. I suspect the sbt plugin
> >> building our rpm is moving files around or something and changing the
> >> modification time, even though the file content isn't changing. We'll
> >> look into this for the next release and see if it's something we can
> >> fix. These jars really should have the same hash.
> >>
> >> The other issues we plan the resolve in the next release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Steve
> >>
> >> [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/10/2018 07:42 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> >>> Hi -
> >>>
> >>> +1 (binding) with a couple of areas for improvement.
> >>>
> >>> Source - hashes and signatures are good.
> >>>
> >>> I’m finally reviewing this release and in looking at the NOTICE and
> >> LICENSE
> >>> there are many copyrights/required notices that are in the LICENSE
> >> instead of
> >>> the NOTICE. Breaking these apart properly is difficult, but needs to be
> >> done
> >>> before your next release.
> >>>
> >>> RAT Check:
> >>>
> >>
> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/util/UniquenessCache.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/numerics/package.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/package.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/SmallUInt.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UByte.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UInt.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/ULong.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/Unsigned.scala
> >>>   ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UShort.scala
> >>> I recognize that all of these have headers that have been copied to the
> >> LICENSE.
> >>>
> >>> Binaries - hashes and signatures are good.
> >>> LICENSE and NOTICE are more correct in the Binaries than the Source.
> >>> Tgz and Zip unpack identical project jars, but for the NPM they are the
> >> same
> >>> size but diff reports they are not identical. I’m going to think of
> this
> >> as an
> >>> artifact of how I unpacked rpm2cpio | cpio
> >>>
> >>> TO DO:
> >>> (1) Fix Source NOTICE and LICENSE
> >>> (2) Handle the 2 test files.
> >>> (3) Improve Rat Check. Probably by including sbt-rat in project with
> >>> addSbtPlugin("org.musigma" % "sbt-rat" % "0.5.1”) and updating
> >> .rat-excludes.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:39 AM, John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org
> >>>> <mailto:johndament@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Justin/Steve,
> >>>>
> >>>> Apologies as its very confusing looking at this email thread trying
to
> >>>> understand what the current state of the vote is.
> >>>>
> >>>> From what I understand:
> >>>>
> >>>> - Two files were included in the release that are Cat-X
> >>>> - These were supposed to be relicensed, but doesn't sound like that
> >> happened
> >>>>
> >>>> Or was it corrected that these two files are UoI NCSA licensed?  If
> >> these
> >>>> files are Cat-X I would also vote a -1 since we cannot release with
> >> clear
> >>>> Cat-X contents (we can release with Cat-X dependencies, but the
> >> contents can't
> >>>> be Cat-X).
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> John
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2018/04/30 11:52:22, Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
> >>>> <mailto:slawrence@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are still need at least one more +1. We'd really appreciate if
if
> >> you
> >>>>> could take a look.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> - Steve
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 04/09/2018 07:24 PM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
> >>>>>> The Apache Daffodil community has voted and approved the proposed
> >>>>>> release of Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote
on
> >> this
> >>>>>> incubator release.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Daffodil is an open source implementation of the DFDL specification
> >> that
> >>>>>> uses DFDL schemas to parse fixed format data into an infoset,
which
> is
> >>>>>> most commonly represented as either XML or JSON. This allows
the use
> >> of
> >>>>>> well-established XML or JSON technologies and libraries to consume,
> >>>>>> inspect, and manipulate fixed format data in existing solutions.
> >>>>>> Daffodil is also capable of the reverse by serializing or
> "unparsing"
> >> an
> >>>>>> XML or JSON infoset back to the original data format.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vote thread:
> >>>>>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/10811e8f520bf100a9250a3ae0610633e9018e0ae8fc422e2c0f097a@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Result thread:
> >>>>>>
> >>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/54a3e681b25f084e0dc46e19764cd19507ff502b927516093a3bd667@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc.
can
> be
> >>>>>> found at:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc3/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1002/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding
to
> >>>>>> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's
KEYS
> >> file.
> >>>>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is also listed here:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc3.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with
2.1.0:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72
hours.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> - Steve
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> <mailto:general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>>> <mailto:general-help@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> <mailto:general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>>> <mailto:general-help@incubator.apache.org>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

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