My understanding is that we have confirmed there are Cat-X files in the release. I don't believe we can approve a release going out with known Cat-X files.
Justin, Dave, thoughts? I'd be happy to switch my vote if there's a shared understanding. John On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:11 AM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> wrote: > The only copyrights in LICENSE are related to BSD, W3C, and OGF > licenses. My understanding is that it is optional to add the copyrights > of these permissive licenses to the NOTICE [1]. And it's actually > preferred to not add them so as to keep the NOTICE as small as possible. > Maybe my understanding of this is wrong? > > Regarding RPM diff, I've looked at the RPM vs tgz daffodil jars and the > internal class files all have the same md5sum. Doing a binary diff, it > looks like the only differences is the file modification time of the > class files--the contents are the same. I suspect the sbt plugin > building our rpm is moving files around or something and changing the > modification time, even though the file content isn't changing. We'll > look into this for the next release and see if it's something we can > fix. These jars really should have the same hash. > > The other issues we plan the resolve in the next release. > > Thanks, > - Steve > > [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps > > > > On 05/10/2018 07:42 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > Hi - > > > > +1 (binding) with a couple of areas for improvement. > > > > Source - hashes and signatures are good. > > > > I’m finally reviewing this release and in looking at the NOTICE and > LICENSE > > there are many copyrights/required notices that are in the LICENSE > instead of > > the NOTICE. Breaking these apart properly is difficult, but needs to be > done > > before your next release. > > > > RAT Check: > > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/util/UniquenessCache.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/numerics/package.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/package.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/SmallUInt.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UByte.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UInt.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/ULong.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/Unsigned.scala > > ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UShort.scala > > I recognize that all of these have headers that have been copied to the > LICENSE. > > > > Binaries - hashes and signatures are good. > > LICENSE and NOTICE are more correct in the Binaries than the Source. > > Tgz and Zip unpack identical project jars, but for the NPM they are the > same > > size but diff reports they are not identical. I’m going to think of this > as an > > artifact of how I unpacked rpm2cpio | cpio > > > > TO DO: > > (1) Fix Source NOTICE and LICENSE > > (2) Handle the 2 test files. > > (3) Improve Rat Check. Probably by including sbt-rat in project with > > addSbtPlugin("org.musigma" % "sbt-rat" % "0.5.1”) and updating > .rat-excludes. > > > > Regards, > > Dave > > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 11:39 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org > >> <mailto:johndam...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Justin/Steve, > >> > >> Apologies as its very confusing looking at this email thread trying to > >> understand what the current state of the vote is. > >> > >> From what I understand: > >> > >> - Two files were included in the release that are Cat-X > >> - These were supposed to be relicensed, but doesn't sound like that > happened > >> > >> Or was it corrected that these two files are UoI NCSA licensed? If > these > >> files are Cat-X I would also vote a -1 since we cannot release with > clear > >> Cat-X contents (we can release with Cat-X dependencies, but the > contents can't > >> be Cat-X). > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> John > >> > >> On 2018/04/30 11:52:22, Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org > >> <mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> We are still need at least one more +1. We'd really appreciate if if > you > >>> could take a look. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> - Steve > >>> > >>> On 04/09/2018 07:24 PM, Steve Lawrence wrote: > >>>> The Apache Daffodil community has voted and approved the proposed > >>>> release of Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3. > >>>> > >>>> We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on > this > >>>> incubator release. > >>>> > >>>> Daffodil is an open source implementation of the DFDL specification > that > >>>> uses DFDL schemas to parse fixed format data into an infoset, which is > >>>> most commonly represented as either XML or JSON. This allows the use > of > >>>> well-established XML or JSON technologies and libraries to consume, > >>>> inspect, and manipulate fixed format data in existing solutions. > >>>> Daffodil is also capable of the reverse by serializing or "unparsing" > an > >>>> XML or JSON infoset back to the original data format. > >>>> > >>>> Vote thread: > >>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/10811e8f520bf100a9250a3ae0610633e9018e0ae8fc422e2c0f097a@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E > >>>> > >>>> Result thread: > >>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/54a3e681b25f084e0dc46e19764cd19507ff502b927516093a3bd667@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E > >>>> > >>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be > >>>> found at: > >>>> > >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc3/ > >>>> > >>>> Staging artifacts can be found at: > >>>> > >>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1002/ > >>>> > >>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to > >>>> slawre...@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS > file. > >>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as: > >>>> > >>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661 > >>>> > >>>> It is also listed here: > >>>> > >>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc > >>>> > >>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc3. > >>>> > >>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0: > >>>> > >>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC > >>>> > >>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see: > >>>> > >>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/ > >>>> > >>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > >>>> > >>>> [ ] +1 approve > >>>> [ ] +0 no opinion > >>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> - Steve > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >>> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >>> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org> > >> > > > >
