Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release

[Dave Fisher]

The ASF as a whole is rather conservative in the sense of being slow to change.

Maven Central for JAR packaging has been around for over a decade AND is 
supported by Apache projects.

Docker is comparatively new and there is less policy around it. There is some, 
but perhaps not well documented.

I think we should evaluate the docker file and see what licensing/policy 
questions there are. We can then ask the VP, Legal Affairs on 
legal-disc...@apache.org

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 17, 2020, at 2:41 PM, Josh Fischer  wrote:
> 
> Gotcha.  I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
> one would be allowed over the other.  At the end of the day they are both
> compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation.  I'll take some
> time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better understanding
> of the differences in the two.
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang  wrote:
>> 
>> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
>> 
>> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
>> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI, tracker,
>> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
>> 
>> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
>> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
>> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
>> jobs.
>> 
>> I hope it is more clear this time.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
>> the
>>> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases".  Wouldn't a maven
>> artifact (
>>> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well?  Am I missing
>> something?
>>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang  wrote:
>>> 
 I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
 license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
>> can't
 have binary release. :(
 
 That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
 
 On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer 
>>> wrote:
 
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
>> binary
> release.  Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
>> size
 of
> the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.  Does
 anyone
> have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> 
> - Josh
> 
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release

[Nicholas Nezis]

Could someone describe what the licensing issue is? I thought work was
already done to include the various license references.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 5:54 PM Ning Wang  wrote:

> Yeah. Technically artifacts contains the dependency libraries tool. Maybe
> artifacts are more urgent and necessary than the executables. Afterall
> executables are convenient to users but not required in the Apache release
> process.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Josh Fischer  wrote:
>
> > Gotcha.  I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
> > one would be allowed over the other.  At the end of the day they are both
> > compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation.  I'll take some
> > time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better
> understanding
> > of the differences in the two.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang  wrote:
> >
> > > That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> > >
> > > The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> > > which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> > tracker,
> > > etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> > >
> > > Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling
> all
> > > the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> > > jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run
> the
> > > jobs.
> > >
> > > I hope it is more clear this time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences
> between
> > > the
> > > > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases".  Wouldn't a maven
> > > artifact (
> > > > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well?  Am I missing
> > > something?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
> > all
> > > > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> > > can't
> > > > > have binary release. :(
> > > > >
> > > > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> > > binary
> > > > > > release.  Before we start I remember there were concerns about
> the
> > > size
> > > > > of
> > > > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.
> > Does
> > > > > anyone
> > > > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Josh
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Monthly meetup invitation

[Sree Vaddi]

Hi Team,

Our monthly meetup will be held on 4th monday this month.
https://www.meetup.com/Apache-Heron-Bay-Area/events/nglzdrybccbbc/

*** We are looking for speakers from various parts of the world. ***
Contact me on our slack.


Thank you./Sree

Re: Podling Heron Report Reminder - February 2020

[Josh Fischer]

Below is a link to the email that contains the comments about the
modifications needed on the licenses in the last vote.  Do these comments
need to be addressed before we can start to vote on an official binary
release?
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201911.mbox/%3C99E443FF-01D7-47C3-9AA0-7F5F1848686E%40classsoftware.com%3E

Other than this, I'm not sure what other binary dependency compatibility
issues would need to be addressed.

- Josh

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:12 AM Dave Fisher  wrote:

> The next step is to discuss each binary dependency and if it is compatible.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:59 PM, Ning Wang  wrote:
> >
> > Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it can't have binary
> > release. :(
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:58 PM Ning Wang 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> >> license issues.
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:20 PM Josh Fischer 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I've been meaning to get a vote out for the 0.20.2-incubating
> binaries, I
> >>> just haven't had the time to get around to it yet.  I know some people
> are
> >>> needing them.  I'm going to start a discussion email today to discuss
> the
> >>> binary release for this version, I think there were concerns from the
> >>> Apache infra side of things because of the size of the binary.
> >>>
>  On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:14 PM Ning Wang 
> wrote:
> >>>
>  I am hoping to have at least 1 binary release before marking #2 as
>  complete.
> 
>  On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:20 AM Josh Fischer 
> >>> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > inlined
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi -
> >>
> >> The list of three actions towards graduation should include current
> >> actions and not ones that are completed.
> >>
> >> I have questions on #1. What are the licensing issues that remain?
> >>> How
> > are
> >> these being tracked?
> >>
> > ** Github issues at the moment.  The licensing issue is mentioned
> here
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/issues/3406 .
> >
> >> ** I don't think we need to list making several releases anymore.  I
> > think
> > we've demonstrated that we can create source releases.
> >
> >>
> >> #3 should be improving the amount of community discussion and
> >>> decision
> >> making on the dev@ mailing list. Monthly Meetups are only in
> >>> Sunnyvale
> >> and exclude most of the world. It is a critical part of the Apache
> >>> Way
>  to
> >> make sure discussion and decision making happens on the mailing
> >>> list.
> >>
> > ** agreed
> >
> >>
> >> On last committers and PPMC members please provide the date of the
> >> elections.
> >>
> >
> > ** will do
> >
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 12:27 AM, Ning Wang 
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I prepared a draft of the Feb podling report:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_8ckuEuL7pdo-eOCHaXs32ymD2_qRKzEybL2Zyr6gXU/edit#
> >>>
> >>> Please help to update if anything is missing. Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 4:26 PM  wrote:
> >>>
>  Dear podling,
> 
>  This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the
> >>> Apache
>  Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of
> >>> time
>  to
>  prepare your quarterly board report.
> 
>  The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 February 2020, 10:30
> >>> am
> > PDT.
>  The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC
>  report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2
>  weeks
>  before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and
>  submission (Wed, February 05).
> 
>  Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the
>  Incubator
>  PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again,
> >>> the
>  very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the
> > board
>  meeting.
> 
>  Candidate names should not be made public before people are
> >>> actually
>  elected, so please do not include the names of potential
> >>> committers
>  or
>  PPMC members in your report.
> 
>  Thanks,
> 
>  The Apache Incubator PMC
> 
>  Submitting your Report
> 
>  --
> 
>  Your report should contain the following:
> 
>  *   Your project name
>  *   A brief description of your project, which assumes no
> >>> knowledge
>  of
>   

Re: Bazel custom rules (tools/rules)

[Ning Wang]

agreed 2

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:49 PM SiMing Weng  wrote:

> One thing I really would like to see happening is a better/simpler IDE
> support, maybe via the the Google Jetbrains Bazel Plugin <
> https://ij.bazel.build/>. I knew we had a shell script to generate
> IntelliJ “.iml” file, but it seems no longer working.
>
> I know from CI point of view, IDE support doesn’t seem important, but a
> better developer experience/productivity is going to help drive the
> interest from the community.
>
> > On Jan 17, 2020, at 5:22 PM, Ning Wang  wrote:
> >
> > agreed
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM Josh Fischer 
> wrote:
> >
> >> I think that most of the rules that Bazel comes with now did not exist
> when
> >> Heron was under its core development cycles. Now when it comes to
> upgrading
> >> Bazel I would ask the dev@ for feedback if you have to make a decision
> on
> >> what is the best way to go, offering your perspective as well.  If you
> feel
> >> that it is simpler to remove some custom rule implementations then I
> would
> >> make your case write a proposal and send it off to dev@ to get feedback
> >> and
> >> support on the issue.  I think it's safe to say we are all looking for a
> >> simpler  way to manage the Bazel build rules within the Heron code base
> and
> >> we would be happy to get suggestions or feedback on any of our current
> >> Bazel usage/implementation today.
> >>
> >> - Josh
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ning Wang 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> My feeling is that, Bazel moves fast. When Heron was started, Bazel was
> >>> still young (4+ years ago) and many tasks have to be done via custom
> >> rules.
> >>> And when upgrading Bazel, it is often not backward compatible . so
> >> the
> >>> effort is to fix the build, not clean it up.
> >>>
> >>> However I was not in the team when the project started. Karthik,
> Sanjeev,
> >>> Maosong, Neng, Huijun should have more information.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:37 AM Nicholas Nezis <
> nicholas.ne...@gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Can I start a thread for a quick discussion about Bazel? I apologize
> if
>  this is a silly question. I'm new to Bazel.
> 
>  I'm curious why there are so many custom rules defined in the Heron
> >> repo
>  (tools/rules). I see Bazel provided rules that we could leverage for
> >>> things
>  like JarJar and Javadoc and Python, etc. Are there specific reasons
> why
>  there is custom logic in the Heron repo? Or was it maybe historical
> >>> because
>  the Bazel provided resources didn't exist at the time? I was looking
> at
>  upgrading our use of Bazel to 1.X. Upgrading our custom logic seem
> >> harder
>  than upgrading a version of a Bazel provided rules dependency.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Nick
> 
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release

[Ning Wang]

Yeah. Technically artifacts contains the dependency libraries tool. Maybe
artifacts are more urgent and necessary than the executables. Afterall
executables are convenient to users but not required in the Apache release
process.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 2:41 PM Josh Fischer  wrote:

> Gotcha.  I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
> one would be allowed over the other.  At the end of the day they are both
> compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation.  I'll take some
> time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better understanding
> of the differences in the two.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang  wrote:
>
> > That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
> >
> > The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> > which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI,
> tracker,
> > etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
> >
> > Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
> > the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> > jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
> > jobs.
> >
> > I hope it is more clear this time.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
> > the
> > > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases".  Wouldn't a maven
> > artifact (
> > > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well?  Am I missing
> > something?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear
> all
> > > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> > can't
> > > > have binary release. :(
> > > >
> > > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> > binary
> > > > > release.  Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
> > size
> > > > of
> > > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.
> Does
> > > > anyone
> > > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > > >
> > > > > - Josh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Bazel custom rules (tools/rules)

[SiMing Weng]

One thing I really would like to see happening is a better/simpler IDE support, 
maybe via the the Google Jetbrains Bazel Plugin . I 
knew we had a shell script to generate IntelliJ “.iml” file, but it seems no 
longer working.

I know from CI point of view, IDE support doesn’t seem important, but a better 
developer experience/productivity is going to help drive the interest from the 
community.

> On Jan 17, 2020, at 5:22 PM, Ning Wang  wrote:
> 
> agreed
> 
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM Josh Fischer  wrote:
> 
>> I think that most of the rules that Bazel comes with now did not exist when
>> Heron was under its core development cycles. Now when it comes to upgrading
>> Bazel I would ask the dev@ for feedback if you have to make a decision on
>> what is the best way to go, offering your perspective as well.  If you feel
>> that it is simpler to remove some custom rule implementations then I would
>> make your case write a proposal and send it off to dev@ to get feedback
>> and
>> support on the issue.  I think it's safe to say we are all looking for a
>> simpler  way to manage the Bazel build rules within the Heron code base and
>> we would be happy to get suggestions or feedback on any of our current
>> Bazel usage/implementation today.
>> 
>> - Josh
>> 
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ning Wang  wrote:
>> 
>>> My feeling is that, Bazel moves fast. When Heron was started, Bazel was
>>> still young (4+ years ago) and many tasks have to be done via custom
>> rules.
>>> And when upgrading Bazel, it is often not backward compatible . so
>> the
>>> effort is to fix the build, not clean it up.
>>> 
>>> However I was not in the team when the project started. Karthik, Sanjeev,
>>> Maosong, Neng, Huijun should have more information.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:37 AM Nicholas Nezis >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Can I start a thread for a quick discussion about Bazel? I apologize if
 this is a silly question. I'm new to Bazel.
 
 I'm curious why there are so many custom rules defined in the Heron
>> repo
 (tools/rules). I see Bazel provided rules that we could leverage for
>>> things
 like JarJar and Javadoc and Python, etc. Are there specific reasons why
 there is custom logic in the Heron repo? Or was it maybe historical
>>> because
 the Bazel provided resources didn't exist at the time? I was looking at
 upgrading our use of Bazel to 1.X. Upgrading our custom logic seem
>> harder
 than upgrading a version of a Bazel provided rules dependency.
 
 Thanks,
 Nick
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release

[Josh Fischer]

Gotcha.  I understand the difference in the two now, but I'm not sure why
one would be allowed over the other.  At the end of the day they are both
compiled binaries released under the Apache foundation.  I'll take some
time to read through apache docs to see if I can get a better understanding
of the differences in the two.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 4:28 PM Ning Wang  wrote:

> That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.
>
> The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
> which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI, tracker,
> etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".
>
> Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
> the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
> jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
> jobs.
>
> I hope it is more clear this time.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer  wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between
> the
> > terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases".  Wouldn't a maven
> artifact (
> > java jar ) be considered a binary release as well?  Am I missing
> something?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang  wrote:
> >
> > > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> > > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it
> can't
> > > have binary release. :(
> > >
> > > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating
> binary
> > > > release.  Before we start I remember there were concerns about the
> size
> > > of
> > > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.  Does
> > > anyone
> > > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > > >
> > > > - Josh
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release

[Ning Wang]

That's true. Maven artifacts are binaries too. My bad.

The "binary" I was referring to are the executables, such as installer,
which contains quite some executables like CLI, exeample jobs, UI, tracker,
etc. The docker image is also part of my "binary".

Basically users can just install and run their jobs without compiling all
the tools from source code. Maven artifacts allow users to build their
jobs. They still need to compile all the other things in order to run the
jobs.

I hope it is more clear this time.



On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:59 PM Josh Fischer  wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between the
> terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases".  Wouldn't a maven artifact (
> java jar ) be considered a binary release as well?  Am I missing something?
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang  wrote:
>
> > I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> > license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it can't
> > have binary release. :(
> >
> > That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating binary
> > > release.  Before we start I remember there were concerns about the size
> > of
> > > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.  Does
> > anyone
> > > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> > >
> > > - Josh
> > >
> >
>

Re: Bazel custom rules (tools/rules)

[Ning Wang]

agreed

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:45 AM Josh Fischer  wrote:

> I think that most of the rules that Bazel comes with now did not exist when
> Heron was under its core development cycles. Now when it comes to upgrading
> Bazel I would ask the dev@ for feedback if you have to make a decision on
> what is the best way to go, offering your perspective as well.  If you feel
> that it is simpler to remove some custom rule implementations then I would
> make your case write a proposal and send it off to dev@ to get feedback
> and
> support on the issue.  I think it's safe to say we are all looking for a
> simpler  way to manage the Bazel build rules within the Heron code base and
> we would be happy to get suggestions or feedback on any of our current
> Bazel usage/implementation today.
>
> - Josh
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ning Wang  wrote:
>
> > My feeling is that, Bazel moves fast. When Heron was started, Bazel was
> > still young (4+ years ago) and many tasks have to be done via custom
> rules.
> > And when upgrading Bazel, it is often not backward compatible . so
> the
> > effort is to fix the build, not clean it up.
> >
> > However I was not in the team when the project started. Karthik, Sanjeev,
> > Maosong, Neng, Huijun should have more information.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:37 AM Nicholas Nezis  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can I start a thread for a quick discussion about Bazel? I apologize if
> > > this is a silly question. I'm new to Bazel.
> > >
> > > I'm curious why there are so many custom rules defined in the Heron
> repo
> > > (tools/rules). I see Bazel provided rules that we could leverage for
> > things
> > > like JarJar and Javadoc and Python, etc. Are there specific reasons why
> > > there is custom logic in the Heron repo? Or was it maybe historical
> > because
> > > the Bazel provided resources didn't exist at the time? I was looking at
> > > upgrading our use of Bazel to 1.X. Upgrading our custom logic seem
> harder
> > > than upgrading a version of a Bazel provided rules dependency.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Nick
> > >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS][MENTORS] 0.20.2-incubating binary release

[Josh Fischer]

I'm not sure I understand how you are defining the differences between the
terms "maven artifacts" and "binary releases".  Wouldn't a maven artifact (
java jar ) be considered a binary release as well?  Am I missing something?


On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 1:02 AM Ning Wang  wrote:

> I think we can not make an official binary release yet before clear all
> license issues. Therefore, 0.20.0.2 can have maven artifacts but it can't
> have binary release. :(
>
> That's just my understanding of Apache requirements.
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 PM Josh Fischer  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to start the process to vote for the 0.20.2-incubating binary
> > release.  Before we start I remember there were concerns about the size
> of
> > the Heron binary and where it would be hosted on Apache Infra.  Does
> anyone
> > have any knowledge on this potential issue?
> >
> > - Josh
> >
>

Re: Bazel custom rules (tools/rules)

[Josh Fischer]

I think that most of the rules that Bazel comes with now did not exist when
Heron was under its core development cycles. Now when it comes to upgrading
Bazel I would ask the dev@ for feedback if you have to make a decision on
what is the best way to go, offering your perspective as well.  If you feel
that it is simpler to remove some custom rule implementations then I would
make your case write a proposal and send it off to dev@ to get feedback and
support on the issue.  I think it's safe to say we are all looking for a
simpler  way to manage the Bazel build rules within the Heron code base and
we would be happy to get suggestions or feedback on any of our current
Bazel usage/implementation today.

- Josh

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:19 PM Ning Wang  wrote:

> My feeling is that, Bazel moves fast. When Heron was started, Bazel was
> still young (4+ years ago) and many tasks have to be done via custom rules.
> And when upgrading Bazel, it is often not backward compatible . so the
> effort is to fix the build, not clean it up.
>
> However I was not in the team when the project started. Karthik, Sanjeev,
> Maosong, Neng, Huijun should have more information.
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:37 AM Nicholas Nezis 
> wrote:
>
> > Can I start a thread for a quick discussion about Bazel? I apologize if
> > this is a silly question. I'm new to Bazel.
> >
> > I'm curious why there are so many custom rules defined in the Heron repo
> > (tools/rules). I see Bazel provided rules that we could leverage for
> things
> > like JarJar and Javadoc and Python, etc. Are there specific reasons why
> > there is custom logic in the Heron repo? Or was it maybe historical
> because
> > the Bazel provided resources didn't exist at the time? I was looking at
> > upgrading our use of Bazel to 1.X. Upgrading our custom logic seem harder
> > than upgrading a version of a Bazel provided rules dependency.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick
> >
>

Re: Bazel custom rules (tools/rules)

[Ning Wang]

My feeling is that, Bazel moves fast. When Heron was started, Bazel was
still young (4+ years ago) and many tasks have to be done via custom rules.
And when upgrading Bazel, it is often not backward compatible . so the
effort is to fix the build, not clean it up.

However I was not in the team when the project started. Karthik, Sanjeev,
Maosong, Neng, Huijun should have more information.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 6:37 AM Nicholas Nezis 
wrote:

> Can I start a thread for a quick discussion about Bazel? I apologize if
> this is a silly question. I'm new to Bazel.
>
> I'm curious why there are so many custom rules defined in the Heron repo
> (tools/rules). I see Bazel provided rules that we could leverage for things
> like JarJar and Javadoc and Python, etc. Are there specific reasons why
> there is custom logic in the Heron repo? Or was it maybe historical because
> the Bazel provided resources didn't exist at the time? I was looking at
> upgrading our use of Bazel to 1.X. Upgrading our custom logic seem harder
> than upgrading a version of a Bazel provided rules dependency.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>

Bazel custom rules (tools/rules)

[Nicholas Nezis]

Can I start a thread for a quick discussion about Bazel? I apologize if
this is a silly question. I'm new to Bazel.

I'm curious why there are so many custom rules defined in the Heron repo
(tools/rules). I see Bazel provided rules that we could leverage for things
like JarJar and Javadoc and Python, etc. Are there specific reasons why
there is custom logic in the Heron repo? Or was it maybe historical because
the Bazel provided resources didn't exist at the time? I was looking at
upgrading our use of Bazel to 1.X. Upgrading our custom logic seem harder
than upgrading a version of a Bazel provided rules dependency.

Thanks,
Nick

[DISCUSSION][MENTORS] License of JSXTransformer.js

[Ning Wang]

Hi,

The last known license issue in Heron is the JSXTransformer.js file. The
issue is tracked here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/pull/3437/files

The JS file contains many functions and each function has different
copyrights and licenses, including Apache, BSD (2/3) and MIT.

I prepared a PR (https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/pull/3437/files)
to solve the problem to meet the requirements. Basically, JSXTransformer is
added under multiple licenses in the LICENSE file, and corresponding
license text files are added in the licenses folder.

The questions are:
- Is this the right way?
- Is there anything we need to do?

This license issue is a major blocker for graduation. Any suggestions would
be greatly appreciated!

--ning