OK. So I see the following actions:
- NOTICE and LICENSE files - promote HOWTO into an INSTALL file in the source artifact - nuke the binary release for now pending lots of thought about licensing - license headers everywhere Grant's review didn't turn up any new warts beyond the ones that we already know about which is good. On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > -1 (binding) > > Notes below on the artifacts. > > I'm also curious why this is being called 1.0 milestone 1 as opposed to > something lower? I know the community has been at it for a while (this is > purely my opinion and isn't binding), so it isn't to say it isn't close to > a 1.0, I guess I would just somewhat expect that 1.0 is what comes out when > the project graduates to a TLP, which presumably happens after doing a > couple of releases. Also, a 1.0 implies, to me anyway, some level of > backwards compatibility going forward. Is this community ready to take > that on for code that has been developed from scratch here and has never > been released before? I'm fine if the answer is yes, I'm just more curious > as to the thought process. > > Artifact notes: > ----- > > In the binary, beyond what others have said: > > The binary doesn't have LICENSE or NOTICE (the source does, but see below) > > I didn't see any instructions on what to do after this, so I stopped > looking. > > Has someone verified that all the 3rd party libraries bundled are > compatible? http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved > > --------- > Source Distro: > > Doing "mvn test" or "mvn install", etc. yields: > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal > com.github.igor-petruk.protobuf:protobuf-maven-plugin:0.6.3:run (default) > on project common: Cannot execute 'protoc': Cannot run program "protoc": > error=2, No such file or directory -> [Help 1] > > -------- > > The NOTICE file is woefully lacking in attributions given the number of > dependencies used. Compare with Solr, for instance: > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/NOTICE.txt. See > http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice > > ------ > > Running Maven Rat ( > http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-plugin/index.html) yields: > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.10:check > (default-cli) on project drill-root: Too many files with unapproved > license: 97 See RAT report in: > /Users/grantingersoll/projects/drill/votes/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1/target/rat.txt > -> [Help 1] > [ERROR] > Which means Drill doesn't have license headers, etc. setup correctly. > > See the full RAT output at http://paste.apache.org/bEnJ > > You can easily run RAT yourself by doing: > http://creadur.apache.org/rat/#Apache_Maven and then running: mvn > apache-rat:check I would suggest just adding it to the POM so it is always > there. > > ------- > > Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html > > <snip> > Is A Full Copy Of The License Required In Each Source File? > In short, only one copy of the license is needed per distribution. This > full license file should be placed at the root of the distribution in a > file named LICENSE. For software developed at the ASF, each source file > need only contain the boilerplate notice. > > Where Is The Right Place For Attribution Notices? > The new license allows for a NOTICE file that contains such attribution > notices (including the Apache attribution notice). Read this. > > Any attribution notices contained within existing source files should be > moved into the file. The NOTICE file must included within the distributed > next to the LICENSE file. > > Ensure that the standard ASF attribution notice is contained in any new > NOTICE file created. > > What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File? > Read this. > > Only mandatory information required by the product's software licenses. > Not suitable for normal documentation. > > Is A NOTICE File Required For Pure ASF Code? > Yes! The NOTICE file must contain the standard ASF attribution, given > below: > > This product includes software developed at > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). > N.B. Unfortunately versions of this document prior to 2013-01-30 > (r1440650) were incorrect, as they used the phrase: "developed by" instead > of "developed at". The official wording was established in section 6C of > the board minutes for May 24 2006 > </snip> > > > On Sep 4, 2013, at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Committers, I've uploaded signed source and binary artifacts for the > > milestone 1 release of Apache Drill. Please take a look and give a +/-1 > > for this release. I believe voting is traditionally held open for 72 > hours > > which would mean please cast your votes by September 7 at noon pacific. > > > > Artifact location: > http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1/ > > > > Thanks! > > Jacques > > -------------------------------------------- > Grant Ingersoll | @gsingers > http://www.lucidworks.com > > > > > >
