On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 15/08/16 23:36, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> > To test this PR locally , perform a dry-run of mvn -Psigned_release
> > release:prepare
> >
> > Verify target/apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-sources.jar
> >
> > and target/apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating.jar
>
> I trust you Suneel :-)  Unless you want some separate testing, I'll wait
> for the new artefacts to be created and do the full review again.
>

I would appreciate if u could verify this fix now as opposed to waiting for
the new artifacts, always helps to have another pair of eyes.

Thanks again Tim.

>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Suneel Marthi <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I fixed issues 5 and 6 below.
> >>
> >> I had to override <maven-source-plugin> which was being inherited from
> >> parent POM.
> >>
> >> For 6, the test material u r seeing is from src/test not from test/.  We
> >> should consider moving those to test/ for the next release, otherwise I
> >> don't think its a blocker for this release.
> >>
> >> Will be pushing a PR soon.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Tim Ellison <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 14/08/16 04:19, Ellison Anne Williams wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the vote for release 0.1.0 of Apache Pirk (incubating).
> >>>>
> >>>> The vote will be going for at least 72 hours and will be closed on
> >>> Wednesday
> >>>> ,
> >>>> August 16, 2016.
> >>>>
> >>>> The artifacts can be downloaded here: https://repository.apache.
> >>>> org/content/repositories/orgapachepirk-1001/org/apache/
> >>>> pirk/apache-pirk/0.1.0-incubating/
> >>>>
> >>>> All JIRAs completed for this release are tagged with 'FixVersion =
> >>> 0.1.0'.
> >>>> You can view them here: https://issues.apache.org/jira
> >>> /browse/PIRK-47?jql=
> >>>> project%20%3D%20PIRK%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D0.1.0
> >>>>
> >>>> The artifacts have been signed with Key : 1FD8849B
> >>>>
> >>>> Please vote accordingly:
> >>>>
> >>>> [ ] +1, accept RC as the official 0.1.0 release
> >>>> [ ] +0, I don't care either way,
> >>>> [ ] -1, do not accept RC as the official 0.1.0 release because...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>> Ellison Anne
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Wow, you guys have had a busy weekend.
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the files in that directory...
> >>>
> >>> (1) Principal release artefact:
> >>>   apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-source-release.zip
> >>>         - sig & sums check ok.
> >>>         - EAW's pub key is in LDAP, KEYS file, etc.
> >>>         - build and test ok on Oracle Java 8b91, RHEL6.
> >>>         - Notice, License files ok.
> >>>         - RAT checks pass.
> >>>
> >>> (2) JavaDocs:
> >>>   apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-javadoc.jar
> >>>         - sig and sums check ok.
> >>>         - Notice and Licence files ok (in META-INF/).
> >>>         - JavaDocs render ok.
> >>>
> >>> (3) Maven pom file:
> >>>         - sig and sums check ok.
> >>>         - references to license and notices ok.
> >>>         - not checked building with it, but oking
> >>>           as minimal diff with project pom.
> >>>
> >>> (4) Dependency combined binary convenience:
> >>>   apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-exe.jar
> >>>         - sig and sums check ok.
> >>>         - not tested
> >>>         ** notices and license files confusion.
> >>>         ** not passing on notices for included dependencies.
> >>>
> >>> jar contains
> >>> /LICENSE-junit.txt
> >>>         JUnit license
> >>> /LICENSE.txt
> >>>         BSD license (from Hamcrest)
> >>> /license/*
> >>>         contains ALv2, and other license and NOTICE file for XML APIs.
> >>> /META-INF/LICENSE
> >>>         ALv2
> >>> /META-INF/LICENSE.txt
> >>>         ALv2 (with reference to org.apache.commons.math3.ml.neuralnet)
> >>> /META-INF/license/*
> >>>         licenses for a variety of dependencies, including
> >>>                 LICENSE.jboss-logging.txt -> LGPLv2
> >>> /META-INF/NOTICE
> >>>         Pirk (only) notice file.
> >>> /META-INF/NOTICE.txt
> >>>         Commons Math notice file.
> >>>
> >>> (5) Pirk-only Source JAR
> >>>   apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating-sources.jar
> >>>         - sig and sums check ok.
> >>>         - Notice and Licence files ok (in META-INF/).
> >>>         - Contains JMH generated source code
> >>>                 org.apache.pirk.benchmark.generated.*
> >>>                 org.openjdk.jmh.infra.generated.*
> >>>         ** Are we clear on the license for these files?
> >>>         ** Fails RAT checks due to unspecified licenses on these files.
> >>>         - Not tried compiling / further testing.
> >>>
> >>> (6) Pirk-only Binary JAR
> >>>   apache-pirk-0.1.0-incubating.jar
> >>>         - sig and sums check ok.
> >>>         - Notice and Licence files ok (in META-INF/).
> >>>         - FYI contains an empty directory (/org/openjdk/).
> >>>         - FYI contains a subset of test material.
> >>>         - No further testing.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have to vote -1 (binding) on these artefacts due to the issues
> >>> identified in (4) and possibly (5).
> >>>
> >>> Notably:
> >>>  (i) we indicate there is LGPLv2.1 material in this release.  If true
> >>> this is contrary to ASF's policy [1], if not then the license text
> >>> should be removed.
> >>>
> >>>  (ii) we are not passing through the required NOTICES for Pirk's
> >>> dependencies as required by their terms.
> >>>
> >>> Pirk's transitive JAR has deep dependencies, so if we are
> redistributing
> >>> them we must include their notice files too.  Our JAR has a number of
> >>> NOTICE files, but they are not comprehensive.  Better to have a single
> >>> complete NOTICE file, e.g. [2].
> >>>
> >>>  (iii) we should clarify the licence of generated JMH files, and
> exclude
> >>> them for the RAT check or remove them from the artefacts as required.
> >>>
> >>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> p.s. I appreciate that (4) is potentially a significant effort to
> >>> resolve, but the convenience JAR is not essential to a release, so we
> >>> may consider dropping that from the release artefacts this time round.
> >>> Just a thought.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Reply via email to