KUDU-2990 has been fixed on master, so 1.12.0 will be conformant when it is released in several months.
I also cherry-picked the fix into branch-1.10.x and branch-1.11.x. Would anyone like to volunteer to RM 1.10.1 and 1.11.1? Besides the usual RM machinery, we need new release notes that document the effects of KUDU-2990. On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Grant Henke <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1 I agree with all of Adars suggestions. > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 8:34 PM Alexey Serbin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Thank you for the feedback, Adar. > > > > I'll add the information on the licensing issue into the 1.11.0 release > > announcement I'm about to send. > > > > I asked a question about the proper way of communicating of the issue on > > the LEGAL-487's comment thread, mentioning that we are about to add a > > notice into > > https://kudu.apache.org/docs/known_issues.html#_other_known_issues > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alexey > > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:20 PM Adar Lieber-Dembo <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > My two cents: > > > - The presence of 1.11.0 on the download page means that 1.11.0 has > > > been de facto released, announcement or no announcement. The > > > announcement doesn't add any additional hurt, so I think we should > > > move forward with it. > > > - Separately, let's also announce the licensing issue and say that > > > we're working to rectify it in all affected release lines. To that > > > end, we will release 1.10.1 and 1.11.1 with the fix ASAP. The guidance > > > offered in LEGAL-487 so far seems to corroborate this. > > > - When 1.12.0 is released several months hence, it will be de facto > > > compliant by virtue of whatever fix first landing in master and then > > > being backported to branch-1.10.x and branch-1.11.x. > > > - I don't know whether we should call this out as a "known issue", as > > > that's typically been used for technical issues rather than legal > > > ones. Would be curious to hear what others think, and maybe you can > > > solicit further feedback in LEGAL-487? > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 4:08 PM Alexey Serbin > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > As Adar recently found, both in Kudu 1.10.0 and Kudu 1.11.0 (due to be > > > > announced today) the kudu-binary artifact contains libnuma library > > which > > > is > > > > under LGPL v.2.1, but it's against the ASF 3rd-party license policy: > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x > > > > > > > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KUDU-2990 for details. > > > > > > > > Apart from the technical discussion on how to resolve that, there are > > few > > > > process-related questions like: > > > > 1. How to address the issue in Kudu 1.11.0, which is de facto already > > > out > > > > of the door? > > > > 2. Should we address the issue in upcoming Kudu 1.12.0 release (about > > > 3-4 > > > > month in the future) or implement the solution and release it with Kudu > > > > 1.11.1 ASAP? > > > > 3. If choosing the latter option from the previous item, should the > > > > announcement of the new Kudu 1.11.0 release be postponed/muted, so we > > > > announce only when Kudu 1.11.1 is out with KUDU-2990 addressed? > > > > > > > > Given the timing and the fact that Kudu 1.11.0 artifacts are already > > > > published, I think one of the possible paths forward is to proceed with > > > the > > > > announcement of Kudu 1.11.0 release as planned, but add an item about > > > > KUDU-2990 into the 'known issues' document, so it will be available at > > > the > > > > Apache Kudu website: > > > > https://kudu.apache.org/docs/known_issues.html#_other_known_issues > > > > > > > > What do you think? Your feedback is appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Alexey > > > > > > > > -- > Grant Henke > Software Engineer | Cloudera > [email protected] | twitter.com/gchenke | linkedin.com/in/granthenke
