Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Tsuyoshi Ozawa]

> The problem I described influences not only binary tar ball, but also
> binaries which is deployed on maven. We need to check them.

I checked GPL sentences to check whether we need eliminate LGPL files:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLCompatInstaller

Quoting from the sentence:
> I would like to bundle GPLed software with some sort of installation 
> software. Does that installer need to have a GPL-compatible license? 
> (#GPLCompatInstaller)
> No. The installer and the files it installs are separate works. As a result, 
> the terms of the GPL do not apply to the installation software.

I think the binary tar ball and maven is just a box and installer.
Fortunately, the source code itself seems to be Apache License and
Apache compatible licenses.

It's strongly depend on what "Apache Products" means[2], but we can
interpret that we don't need to eliminate LGPL files from tar ball and
maven installer. I think we should we have a talk with legal team.
I'll contact them.

> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>> WHICH LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS?
>> * GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3

Thanks,
- Tsuyoshi

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
>> so I'm thinking this is not a problem. We need to update the patch to
> address the above comments. Especially, we need to investigate what
> dependency is in binary tarball or not.
>
> The problem I described influences not only binary tar ball, but also
> binaries which is deployed on maven. We need to check them.
>
> Thanks,
> - Tsuyoshi
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
>> Quoting from offline discussion by Akira's comment:
>>
>> In HADOOP-12893, the LGPL2.1 dependencies are as follows:
>>
>>> Logback Core Module
>>> jdiff
>>> Javaassist
>> They are not included in binary tarball.
>>
>>> FindBugs-jsr305
>> jsr305-3.0.0.jar is included in binary tarball. This is actually New
>> BSD license.
>> https://github.com/findbugsproject/findbugs/blob/3.0.0/findbugs/licenses/LICENSE-jsr305.txt
>>
>>> Data Mapper for Jackson
>>> Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
>> They are dual-licensed (ASLv2 and LGPL2.1) and users can use either of
>> this. We are using ASLv2 by setting "jackson-core-asl" in pom.xml.
>>
>> so I'm thinking this is not a problem. We need to update the patch to
>> address the above comments. Especially, we need to investigate what
>> dependency is in binary tarball or not.
>>
>> Best,
>> Akira
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
 We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
 bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
 we're actually allowed to do that.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know it's not useful for end users. I'd like to clarify the
>>> problems we're facing here.
>>>
>>> Currently, our binary tar ball cannot be delivered under the Apache
>>> License since it includes LGPL binary. Hence, IIUC, the binary
>>> contains mixed license - LGPL and Apache Software License v2.
>>> This mean, we may be hosting software which is NOT under the apache
>>> license. It seems to be forbidden[1][2] for us. Apache Ignite solves
>>> the problems well by providing Docker script and binary tar balls
>>> without LGPL files.
>>>
>>> If we choose to release next version of Hadoop with the binary
>>> release, we should fix HADOOP-12893 at the first.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'll review the patch.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#licenses
 CAN ASF PMCS HOST PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT UNDER THE APACHE LICENSE?
 No. See the Apache Software Foundation licenses page for more details, and 
 the Apache Software Foundation page for additional background.
>>>
>>> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
 WHICH LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS?
 * GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3
>>>
>>> [3] https://ignite.apache.org/download.html
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> - Tsuyoshi
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Andrew Wang  
>>> wrote:
 Re: src-only release

 The primary way people consume our artifacts is the binary tarball and more
 importantly the Maven artifacts. Our downstreams aren't going to integrate
 and test without Maven artifacts. Thus (unfortunately) I don't see a
 src-only release being very useful.

 We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
 bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
 we're actually allowed to do that.

 On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Steve Loughran 
 wrote:

>
> > On 16 May 2016, at 02:43, Andrew Wang  wrote:
> >
> > Hi common-dev,
> >
> > We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to 
> > Xiao
> > Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the 

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Xiao Chen]

Andrew has been working on the next patch recently, but he's on PTO since
today until next Mon.
We still have some license merging work to do, I'll handle it. I think we
can have an update on Monday or Tuesday.

So far looks like the deps using LGPL are all dual-licensed, so we don't
have legal issues. We should list them under the more friendly license
(e.g. ASL).

Thanks,

-Xiao

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <
vino...@apache.org> wrote:

> Can you please summarize on how much effort is still left with
> HADOOP-12893?
>
> Like the starting email mentioned, for all purposes, all Hadoop releases
> are blocked on this decision - even though they are ready otherwise (for
> e.g. 2.7.3).
>
> +Vinod
>
> > On May 19, 2016, at 1:34 AM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
> >
> > If we choose to release next version of Hadoop with the binary
> > release, we should fix HADOOP-12893 at the first.
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli]

Can you please summarize on how much effort is still left with HADOOP-12893?

Like the starting email mentioned, for all purposes, all Hadoop releases are 
blocked on this decision - even though they are ready otherwise (for e.g. 
2.7.3).

+Vinod

> On May 19, 2016, at 1:34 AM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
> 
> If we choose to release next version of Hadoop with the binary
> release, we should fix HADOOP-12893 at the first.

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Tsuyoshi Ozawa]

> so I'm thinking this is not a problem. We need to update the patch to
address the above comments. Especially, we need to investigate what
dependency is in binary tarball or not.

The problem I described influences not only binary tar ball, but also
binaries which is deployed on maven. We need to check them.

Thanks,
- Tsuyoshi

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
> Quoting from offline discussion by Akira's comment:
>
> In HADOOP-12893, the LGPL2.1 dependencies are as follows:
>
>> Logback Core Module
>> jdiff
>> Javaassist
> They are not included in binary tarball.
>
>> FindBugs-jsr305
> jsr305-3.0.0.jar is included in binary tarball. This is actually New
> BSD license.
> https://github.com/findbugsproject/findbugs/blob/3.0.0/findbugs/licenses/LICENSE-jsr305.txt
>
>> Data Mapper for Jackson
>> Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
> They are dual-licensed (ASLv2 and LGPL2.1) and users can use either of
> this. We are using ASLv2 by setting "jackson-core-asl" in pom.xml.
>
> so I'm thinking this is not a problem. We need to update the patch to
> address the above comments. Especially, we need to investigate what
> dependency is in binary tarball or not.
>
> Best,
> Akira
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
>>> We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
>>> bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
>>> we're actually allowed to do that.
>>
>> Yes, I know it's not useful for end users. I'd like to clarify the
>> problems we're facing here.
>>
>> Currently, our binary tar ball cannot be delivered under the Apache
>> License since it includes LGPL binary. Hence, IIUC, the binary
>> contains mixed license - LGPL and Apache Software License v2.
>> This mean, we may be hosting software which is NOT under the apache
>> license. It seems to be forbidden[1][2] for us. Apache Ignite solves
>> the problems well by providing Docker script and binary tar balls
>> without LGPL files.
>>
>> If we choose to release next version of Hadoop with the binary
>> release, we should fix HADOOP-12893 at the first.
>>
>> Yes, I'll review the patch.
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#licenses
>>> CAN ASF PMCS HOST PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT UNDER THE APACHE LICENSE?
>>> No. See the Apache Software Foundation licenses page for more details, and 
>>> the Apache Software Foundation page for additional background.
>>
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>>> WHICH LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS?
>>> * GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3
>>
>> [3] https://ignite.apache.org/download.html
>>
>> Best,
>> - Tsuyoshi
>>
>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Andrew Wang  
>> wrote:
>>> Re: src-only release
>>>
>>> The primary way people consume our artifacts is the binary tarball and more
>>> importantly the Maven artifacts. Our downstreams aren't going to integrate
>>> and test without Maven artifacts. Thus (unfortunately) I don't see a
>>> src-only release being very useful.
>>>
>>> We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
>>> bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
>>> we're actually allowed to do that.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Steve Loughran 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 > On 16 May 2016, at 02:43, Andrew Wang  wrote:
 >
 > Hi common-dev,
 >
 > We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to Xiao
 > Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the brunt of this work. However, full
 ASF
 > compliance will require a lot more Maven work. In the meanwhile, our
 > releases are blocked.
 >
 > We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the
 > currently ongoing releases out the door. The intent is not to keep
 kicking
 > the can down the road.
 >
 > Since releases require a majority PMC vote, if a PMC member would -1 a
 > release on these grounds, please speak up. Additional review help &
 > particularly Maven wizardry is also always appreciated.
 >
 > Best,
 > Andrew



 HADOOP-13154 covers a license-ish issue: a bit of S3AFilesystem is clearly
 a cut and paste of the Amazon SDK. There's nothing directly wrong with
 that, the SDK is ASF-licensed, we just need to call it out. In HADOOP-13130
 I've cut the code out.



 BTW: does anyone know why the default reply is to sender and not list
 anymore? That's really annoying.

 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Tsuyoshi Ozawa]

Quoting from offline discussion by Akira's comment:

In HADOOP-12893, the LGPL2.1 dependencies are as follows:

> Logback Core Module
> jdiff
> Javaassist
They are not included in binary tarball.

> FindBugs-jsr305
jsr305-3.0.0.jar is included in binary tarball. This is actually New
BSD license.
https://github.com/findbugsproject/findbugs/blob/3.0.0/findbugs/licenses/LICENSE-jsr305.txt

> Data Mapper for Jackson
> Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
They are dual-licensed (ASLv2 and LGPL2.1) and users can use either of
this. We are using ASLv2 by setting "jackson-core-asl" in pom.xml.

so I'm thinking this is not a problem. We need to update the patch to
address the above comments. Especially, we need to investigate what
dependency is in binary tarball or not.

Best,
Akira

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 5:34 PM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa  wrote:
>> We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
>> bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
>> we're actually allowed to do that.
>
> Yes, I know it's not useful for end users. I'd like to clarify the
> problems we're facing here.
>
> Currently, our binary tar ball cannot be delivered under the Apache
> License since it includes LGPL binary. Hence, IIUC, the binary
> contains mixed license - LGPL and Apache Software License v2.
> This mean, we may be hosting software which is NOT under the apache
> license. It seems to be forbidden[1][2] for us. Apache Ignite solves
> the problems well by providing Docker script and binary tar balls
> without LGPL files.
>
> If we choose to release next version of Hadoop with the binary
> release, we should fix HADOOP-12893 at the first.
>
> Yes, I'll review the patch.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#licenses
>> CAN ASF PMCS HOST PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT UNDER THE APACHE LICENSE?
>> No. See the Apache Software Foundation licenses page for more details, and 
>> the Apache Software Foundation page for additional background.
>
> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
>> WHICH LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS?
>> * GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3
>
> [3] https://ignite.apache.org/download.html
>
> Best,
> - Tsuyoshi
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Andrew Wang  wrote:
>> Re: src-only release
>>
>> The primary way people consume our artifacts is the binary tarball and more
>> importantly the Maven artifacts. Our downstreams aren't going to integrate
>> and test without Maven artifacts. Thus (unfortunately) I don't see a
>> src-only release being very useful.
>>
>> We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
>> bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
>> we're actually allowed to do that.
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Steve Loughran 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > On 16 May 2016, at 02:43, Andrew Wang  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi common-dev,
>>> >
>>> > We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to Xiao
>>> > Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the brunt of this work. However, full
>>> ASF
>>> > compliance will require a lot more Maven work. In the meanwhile, our
>>> > releases are blocked.
>>> >
>>> > We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the
>>> > currently ongoing releases out the door. The intent is not to keep
>>> kicking
>>> > the can down the road.
>>> >
>>> > Since releases require a majority PMC vote, if a PMC member would -1 a
>>> > release on these grounds, please speak up. Additional review help &
>>> > particularly Maven wizardry is also always appreciated.
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Andrew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> HADOOP-13154 covers a license-ish issue: a bit of S3AFilesystem is clearly
>>> a cut and paste of the Amazon SDK. There's nothing directly wrong with
>>> that, the SDK is ASF-licensed, we just need to call it out. In HADOOP-13130
>>> I've cut the code out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW: does anyone know why the default reply is to sender and not list
>>> anymore? That's really annoying.
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>>>
>>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Tsuyoshi Ozawa]

> We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
> bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
> we're actually allowed to do that.

Yes, I know it's not useful for end users. I'd like to clarify the
problems we're facing here.

Currently, our binary tar ball cannot be delivered under the Apache
License since it includes LGPL binary. Hence, IIUC, the binary
contains mixed license - LGPL and Apache Software License v2.
This mean, we may be hosting software which is NOT under the apache
license. It seems to be forbidden[1][2] for us. Apache Ignite solves
the problems well by providing Docker script and binary tar balls
without LGPL files.

If we choose to release next version of Hadoop with the binary
release, we should fix HADOOP-12893 at the first.

Yes, I'll review the patch.

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#licenses
> CAN ASF PMCS HOST PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT UNDER THE APACHE LICENSE?
> No. See the Apache Software Foundation licenses page for more details, and 
> the Apache Software Foundation page for additional background.

[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> WHICH LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS?
> * GNU LGPL 2, 2.1, 3

[3] https://ignite.apache.org/download.html

Best,
- Tsuyoshi

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Andrew Wang  wrote:
> Re: src-only release
>
> The primary way people consume our artifacts is the binary tarball and more
> importantly the Maven artifacts. Our downstreams aren't going to integrate
> and test without Maven artifacts. Thus (unfortunately) I don't see a
> src-only release being very useful.
>
> We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
> bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
> we're actually allowed to do that.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Steve Loughran 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 16 May 2016, at 02:43, Andrew Wang  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi common-dev,
>> >
>> > We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to Xiao
>> > Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the brunt of this work. However, full
>> ASF
>> > compliance will require a lot more Maven work. In the meanwhile, our
>> > releases are blocked.
>> >
>> > We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the
>> > currently ongoing releases out the door. The intent is not to keep
>> kicking
>> > the can down the road.
>> >
>> > Since releases require a majority PMC vote, if a PMC member would -1 a
>> > release on these grounds, please speak up. Additional review help &
>> > particularly Maven wizardry is also always appreciated.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> HADOOP-13154 covers a license-ish issue: a bit of S3AFilesystem is clearly
>> a cut and paste of the Amazon SDK. There's nothing directly wrong with
>> that, the SDK is ASF-licensed, we just need to call it out. In HADOOP-13130
>> I've cut the code out.
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW: does anyone know why the default reply is to sender and not list
>> anymore? That's really annoying.
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>>
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Andrew Wang]

Re: src-only release

The primary way people consume our artifacts is the binary tarball and more
importantly the Maven artifacts. Our downstreams aren't going to integrate
and test without Maven artifacts. Thus (unfortunately) I don't see a
src-only release being very useful.

We used to say "the src tarball is the only official release artifact, the
bin tarball and jars are only provided as a convenience", but I don't think
we're actually allowed to do that.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:56 AM, Steve Loughran 
wrote:

>
> > On 16 May 2016, at 02:43, Andrew Wang  wrote:
> >
> > Hi common-dev,
> >
> > We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to Xiao
> > Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the brunt of this work. However, full
> ASF
> > compliance will require a lot more Maven work. In the meanwhile, our
> > releases are blocked.
> >
> > We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the
> > currently ongoing releases out the door. The intent is not to keep
> kicking
> > the can down the road.
> >
> > Since releases require a majority PMC vote, if a PMC member would -1 a
> > release on these grounds, please speak up. Additional review help &
> > particularly Maven wizardry is also always appreciated.
> >
> > Best,
> > Andrew
>
>
>
> HADOOP-13154 covers a license-ish issue: a bit of S3AFilesystem is clearly
> a cut and paste of the Amazon SDK. There's nothing directly wrong with
> that, the SDK is ASF-licensed, we just need to call it out. In HADOOP-13130
> I've cut the code out.
>
>
>
> BTW: does anyone know why the default reply is to sender and not list
> anymore? That's really annoying.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Steve Loughran]

> On 16 May 2016, at 02:43, Andrew Wang  wrote:
> 
> Hi common-dev,
> 
> We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to Xiao
> Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the brunt of this work. However, full ASF
> compliance will require a lot more Maven work. In the meanwhile, our
> releases are blocked.
> 
> We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the
> currently ongoing releases out the door. The intent is not to keep kicking
> the can down the road.
> 
> Since releases require a majority PMC vote, if a PMC member would -1 a
> release on these grounds, please speak up. Additional review help &
> particularly Maven wizardry is also always appreciated.
> 
> Best,
> Andrew



HADOOP-13154 covers a license-ish issue: a bit of S3AFilesystem is clearly a 
cut and paste of the Amazon SDK. There's nothing directly wrong with that, the 
SDK is ASF-licensed, we just need to call it out. In HADOOP-13130 I've cut the 
code out.



BTW: does anyone know why the default reply is to sender and not list anymore? 
That's really annoying.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Release blocker HADOOP-12893 (LICENSE and NOTICE files)

[Tsuyoshi Ozawa]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for starting discussion.

> We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the currently 
> ongoing releases out the door.

It's a good choice and I agree with you basically. My impression,
however, is that we should stop *binary distribution* and we should
only provide *source distribution* for the release until the problem
will be fixed  after checking your patch on HADOOP-12893. It's because
our binary distribution includes LGPL files which should not be
included as Apache products[1]. I know that it introduces us the
inconvenience, but it looks safer choice to me for protecting our
Apache Hadoop project.

As Xiao and Sean mentioned, we should introduce
maven-remote-resources-plugin as soon as possible. After doing this,
we can resume binary distribution.

Thoughts?

[1]  LICENSES MAY NOT BE INCLUDED WITHIN APACHE PRODUCTS,
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
[2] http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-remote-resources-plugin/

Bests,
- Tsuyoshi

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Wang  wrote:
> Hi common-dev,
>
> We have a first cut of the L files on HADOOP-12893. Many thanks to Xiao
> Chen and Akira Ajisaka for doing the brunt of this work. However, full ASF
> compliance will require a lot more Maven work. In the meanwhile, our
> releases are blocked.
>
> We're thinking about a "fix-and-iterate" approach, just to get the
> currently ongoing releases out the door. The intent is not to keep kicking
> the can down the road.
>
> Since releases require a majority PMC vote, if a PMC member would -1 a
> release on these grounds, please speak up. Additional review help &
> particularly Maven wizardry is also always appreciated.
>
> Best,
> Andrew

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: common-dev-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: common-dev-h...@hadoop.apache.org