Oh, sorry for late reply due to holiday. About LICENSE/NOTICE issue, i added it just following this change: https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/4749/files. I just created DL-189 to track it, thanks for kindly reminder.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > Given that there has been no further feedback on the LICENSE/NOTICE point > below, perhaps we should create a couple of issues to track them so that we > can revisit before graduation? They should not block this release, but we > need to do some due diligence there. > > -Flavio > >> On 24 Jan 2017, at 02:52, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Ping? >> >> If there is no other strong objections here, I'd like to conclude the votes >> and proceed the remaining steps for the release. >> >> - Sijie >> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 18:42, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Flavio, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org <mailto: >>>> si...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 18, 2017 10:37 AM, "Sijie Guo" <si...@apache.org <mailto: >>>> si...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 17, 2017 2:58 PM, "Flavio Junqueira" <f...@apache.org <mailto: >>>> f...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> +1, I have checked the following: >>>>> >>>>> - Built both 2.10 and 2.11 from source (skipped tests) >>>>> - Checksums and signatures >>>>> - NOTICE and LICENSE >>>>> - Rat >>>>> >>>>> Questions: >>>>> 1- I'm wondering if the text about Hadoop in NOTICE is necessary. How >>>> did you guys end up including it? >>>>> >>>>> Ah, I need to check that. Can't remember why it was brought in right >>>> now. >>>>> >>>>> I think this because we ported one class from Hadoop >>>> "TestTimedOutTestsListener" - we used it for dump information when the >>>> tests timed out. do you see any concerns here? what is your suggestion? >>>> >>>> I'm not particularly concerned, but I'm wondering if this is really >>>> needed in NOTICE, simply because the guidance we have from ASF is that we >>>> should change the NOTICE file only when strictly necessary. In particular, >>>> this part: >>>> >>>> NOTICE is reserved for a certain subset of legally required notifications >>>> which are not satisfied by either the text of LICENSE or the presence of >>>> licensing information embedded within the bundled dependency. Aside from >>>> Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own, it is >>>> uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE. >>>> >>>> says that such changes aren't necessary for Apache-licensed dependencies, >>>> but in this case, it is not really a dependency, you copied a file into >>>> your code, so I'm not sure. Perhaps one of the other mentors have some >>>> insight here. >>>> >>> >>> Henry, Chris, >>> >>> Any thoughts about the NOTICE file here? >>> >>> Liang, >>> >>> Since you added the hadoop part in the NOTICE file, can you comment what >>> was your experiences about the NOTICE file here? >>> >>> - Sijie >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> commit ea3c1143f9e2718d0d86e8b1c8f3a7e51ac19c4d >>>>> Author: xieliang <xieliang...@gmail.com <mailto:xieliang...@gmail.com>> >>>>> Date: Wed Jan 4 16:09:01 2017 -0800 >>>>> >>>>> DL-165: Add TestTimedOutTestsListener to dump timed out cases >>>> thread dump >>>>> >>>>> Author: xieliang <xieliang...@gmail.com <mailto: >>>> xieliang...@gmail.com>> >>>>> >>>>> Reviewers: Leigh Stewart <lstew...@apache.org <mailto: >>>> lstew...@apache.org>> >>>>> >>>>> Closes #91 from xieliang/DL-165-TimedOutTestsListene >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2- The tgz bundles do not include any jar directly, so there is no real >>>> concern about bundling the bits from other projects that could require more >>>> sections in the NOTICE file, is it right? >>>>> >>>>> I am clear about this part. Any principles to follow in Apache? >>>>> >>>>> Sorry typo => not clear about >>>>> >>>>> Can you comment more on this part? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This comment is based on this: >>>> >>>> LICENSE and NOTICE must always be tailored to the content of the specific >>>> distribution they reside within. Dependencies which are not included in the >>>> distribution MUST NOT be added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE and >>>> NOTICE are concerned, only bundled bits matter. >>>> >>>> I didn't see anything specific that called my attention, and I'm doing >>>> due diligence and asking. >>>> >>>> Both paragraphs I copied are from this page: >>>> >>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html >>>> >>>> -Flavio >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Flavio >>>>> >>>>>> On 17 Jan 2017, at 17:12, Leigh Stewart <lstew...@twitter.com.INVALID> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:13 AM, Jon Derrick < >>>> jonathan.derri...@gmail.com <mailto:jonathan.derri...@gmail.com>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LGTM. compiled the source packages and ran dbench. the license files >>>> look >>>>>>> good. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - jd >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Sijie Guo <si...@apache.org >>>> <mailto:si...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version >>>> 0.4.0, >>>>>>>> as follows: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [ ] +1, Approve the release >>>>>>>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific >>>> comments) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which >>>> includes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * JIRA release notes [1], >>>>>>>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to >>>>>>> dist.apache.org <http://dist.apache.org/> >>>>>>>> [2], >>>>>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository >>>>>>> [3][4], >>>>>>>> * source code tag "v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.11" (for scala 2.11) >>>> and >>>>>>>> "v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.10" (for scala 2.10) [5][6], >>>>>>>> * website pull request listing the release [7] and publishing >>>> the API >>>>>>>> reference manual. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A simple instruction for validation the source and binary packages. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - source package: building the package with "*mvn clean >>>> apache-rat:check >>>>>>>> package findbugs:check -DskipTests*" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by >>>> majority >>>>>>>> approval, with at least 3 PPMC affirmative votes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> Sijie >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa < >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa>? >>>>>>>> projectId=12320620&version=12337980 >>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/distributed >>>> log/0.4.0- <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/distribute >>>> dlog/0.4.0-> >>>>>>>> incubating-RC2/ >>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ < >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/> >>>>>>>> orgapachedistributedlog-1003/ >>>>>>>> [4] >>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ < >>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/> >>>>>>>> orgapachedistributedlog-1004/ >>>>>>>> [5] >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/ < >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/> >>>>>>>> v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.11 >>>>>>>> [6] >>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/ < >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/tree/> >>>>>>>> v0.4.0-incubating-RC1_2.10 >>>>>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/109 < >>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-distributedlog/pull/109> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> - jderrick >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
