Question about the LICENSE. When swapping in rocksdb for leveldb [1], the leveldb LICENSE section was removed. I looked at the ticket chatter [2] and saw "Not including RocksDB because it is dual licensed under Apache License, Version2.0". In reviewing the rocksdb thirdparty, it has a LICENSE.leveldb file [2], which says the code includes "Leveldb licensed" code . I tried poking around, and it looks like there has been a lot of discussion about rocksdb licensing, and saw a few unceremonious commits / PRs. Digging further, I found this LEGAL ticket [6], which I honestly can't tell what it implies, but I can't tell what happened with this comment [7].
Did this already get discussed and I missed it somehow? Two questions, Should the leveldb license section be re-added to our base LICENSE, and secondly, should we look more closely at that LEGAL ticket decision, or is the version we pulled not applicable to that discussion? 1. https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/commit/ 488677321cdf32c196fdaae6fb31a2b38ef10461#diff-9879d6db96fd29134fc802214163b9 5a 2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-113 3. https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/blob/minifi- cpp-0.3.0-RC1/thirdparty/rocksdb/LICENSE.leveldb 4. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/4a2e4891fe4c6f66fb9e8e2d29b04f 46ee702b52 5. https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/2591 6. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-303 7. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-303?focusedCommentId=16109870&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16109870 On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Kevin Doran <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > Verified hashes, built and ran all tests, built docker and ran all > integration tests. Ran a simple test flow. > > I did run into one minor issue, which is if virtualenv is configured with > python3 by default then creating the virtual environment for the pytest > integration tests fails. As this only affects integration tests in some > environments, and not the library or agent, I don't think it is a concern > for the purpose of the RC vote. It's an easy fix as well... I opened > MINIFICPP-318 [1] and submitted a PR [2]. > > Thanks to everyone who has contributed the many features and improvements > since the last release, and thanks Marc for pulling the RC together! > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MINIFICPP-318 > [2] https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/pull/204 > > Thanks, > Kevin > > On 11/22/17, 18:42, "Aldrin Piri" <[email protected]> wrote: > > +1, binding > > Built, tested, and created Docker container on OS X 10.12 and Centos > 7.3 > > Ran a few flows and verified expected functionality on both systems. > > Thanks for getting this RC together! > > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Jeremy Dyer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Your right let’s not put out another release for this since it can be > > simply fixed by using the flags you provided. I went through the > build > > again and validated the runtime. Everything looks good now so I’m > changing > > my vote to a > > > > +1 > > > > - Jeremy > > > > > On Nov 22, 2017, at 10:31 AM, Marc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Jeremy, > > > Thanks for your vote. > > > > > > Your version of GCC will likely cause this warnings due to spec > > > additions, and since RocksDB fails on any warning your build > failed as > > well. > > > > > > Please try the following before running make: *cmake -DPORTABLE=ON > > > -DFAIL_ON_WARNINGS= ..* > > > > > > I am not in favor of upgrading the version of RocksDB before > another RC > > > to address the issue, if it does ( there are others to address as > well ). > > > RocksDB created another release which I think may address this > particular > > > warning, but others may cause the build to fail. In some cases > these > > > warnings are simply to address potential performance issues. > > > > > > In regards to your -1, I'm happy to put out another RC that > hardcodes > > the > > > option* -DFAIL_ON_WARNINGS= *, effectively disabling the failure, > but I'm > > > on the fence about that. Should I simply augment the procedures? > Would > > love > > > input. > > > > > > Upgrading RocksDB introduces risk too, of course. The previous > plan was > > > to merge an updated PR for RocksDB shortly after this release to > avoid > > > incurring additional risk for 0.3.0. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Jeremy Dyer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> -1 Marc I'm having trouble getting this to build using Ubuntu > 17.10 with > > >> GCC version "gcc (Ubuntu 7.2.0-8ubuntu3) 7.2.0" seems to be an > issue > > with > > >> building RocksDB with this version of GCC. Looks like there is an > > update of > > >> RocksDB where this would work however. What do you think? > > >> > > >>> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Marc <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Hello Apache NiFi Community, > > >>> > > >>> I am pleased to be calling this vote for the source release of > Apache > > >> NiFi > > >>> MiNiFi C++, nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0. > > >>> > > >>> The source archive, signature, and digests can be located at: > > >>> > > >>> Source Archive: > > >>> > > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-minifi-cpp/ > > >>> 0.3.0/nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0-source.tar.gz > > >>> GPG armored signature: > > >>> > > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-minifi-cpp/ > > >>> 0.3.0/nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0-source.tar.gz.asc > > >>> Source MD5: > > >>> > > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-minifi-cpp/ > > >>> 0.3.0/nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0-source.tar.gz.md5 > > >>> Source SHA1: > > >>> > > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-minifi-cpp/ > > >>> 0.3.0/nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0-source.tar.gz.sha1 > > >>> Source SHA256: > > >>> > > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/nifi-minifi-cpp/ > > >>> 0.3.0/nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0-source.tar.gz.sha256 > > >>> > > >>> The Git tag is minifi-cpp-0.3.0-RC1 > > >>> The Git commit hash is d3852a73beaafa78a789d975f6d3a595b7761d41 > > >>> * > > >>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=nifi-minifi-cpp. > > >> git;a=commit;h= > > >>> d3852a73beaafa78a789d975f6d3a595b7761d41 > > >>> * > > >>> https://github.com/apache/nifi-minifi-cpp/commit/ > > >>> d3852a73beaafa78a789d975f6d3a595b7761d41 > > >>> > > >>> Checksums of nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0-source.tar.gz: > > >>> MD5: 8bcc8987e8322e1be0ddc631adc4f9bd > > >>> SHA1: 811cc8c54572f25121b64b123a8fca176e81509b > > >>> SHA256: f87815c31b5b15a30d2261800a89d9 > eab678d5ecc485d53f83c035d6ddb3 > > 1b8a > > >>> > > >>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key: > > >>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/phrocker > > >>> > > >>> KEYS file available here: > > >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/nifi/KEYS > > >>> > > >>> 59 issues were closed/resolved for this release: > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > > >>> projectId=12321520&version=12341640 > > >>> > > >>> Release note highlights can be found here: > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MINIFI/ > > >>> Release+Notes#ReleaseNotes-Versioncpp-0.3.0 > > >>> > > >>> Since Thursday is a major US Holiday, the vote will be open for > 96 > > hours > > >>> and will close on 25 Nov at 3PM EDT [1]. > > >>> > > >>> Please download the release candidate and evaluate the necessary > items > > >>> including checking hashes, signatures, build from source, and > test. > > Then > > >>> please vote: > > >>> > > >>> [ ] +1 Release this package as nifi-minifi-cpp-0.3.0 > > >>> [ ] +0 no opinion > > >>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [1] You can determine this time for your local time zone at > > >>> https://s.apache.org/minifi-cpp-0.3.0-rc1-close > > >>> > > >> > > > > > >
