[VOTE] Release Apache HAWQ 2.1.0.0-incubating (RC4)

[Ed Espino]

Hello Incubator PMC (IPMC),

The Apache HAWQ community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release Apache HAWQ 2.1.0.0-incubating (source only release).

We kindly request that the IPMC members review and vote on this
incubator release.

The PPMC VOTE thread is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b641ddf4519feba01d3d4c55180be842a27e75bdaef640175b623e12@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E

The PPMC VOTE RESULT is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9d3025c12dc032437d1317d662f0e4434754c00258ca1abdd5c0ab9f@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E

All JIRAs completed for this release are tagged with:
  fixVersion = 2.1.0.0-incubating

A complete JIRA list can be reviewed here:
*
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318826=12339640

The tag to be voted on: 2.1.0.0-incubating-rc4
(f5033eaa3c7c1d9f85bbcc56e9d921d96337831a), located here:
*
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=12c7df017551f1c3b0deb38c7243db3e018ef62c

Git release branch:
*
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/2.1.0.0-incubating

Source release package:
*
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.1.0.0-incubating.RC4/apache-hawq-src-2.1.0.0-incubating.tar.gz

Source release verification:
* PGP Signature:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.1.0.0-incubating.RC4/apache-hawq-src-2.1.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.asc
* SHA256/MD5 Hash:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.1.0.0-incubating.RC4/apache-hawq-src-2.1.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha256

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.1.0.0-incubating.RC4/apache-hawq-src-2.1.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.md5

Keys to verify the signature of the release artifact are available at:
* https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS

The artifact(s) has been signed with Key ID: 57325522 ("esp...@apache.org")

Build instructions are included in the project's wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Build+and+Install

When voting, please list the actions taken to verify the release. To
facilitate Apache license review and conformance, an Apache Release
Audit Tool (RAT) pom.xml file is included in the source root
directory.

The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

Please vote:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)

Thanks,
-=ed espino

-- 
*Ed Espino*
*esp...@apache.org *

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:43 PM Jitendra Pandey 
wrote:

> A software grant document
> (https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) from Hortonworks has
> already been filed with secret...@apache.org, and has been ack-ed.
>
>
Then other than verifying new license headers are in place, as needed,
you're good to go.

(and I only looked after that a SGA was filed, so sorry for making that
ambiguous)


>
> On 2/21/17, 5:28 PM, "John D. Ament"  wrote:
>
> >Please note that IP Clearance is not for new projects, it is for code
> >donations.  In this case, we would expect an SGA from Hortonworks, or
> >nothing since the project is already Apache licensed.
> >
> >Even going as far back as the first commit, it was licensed to the Apache
> >Software Foundation -
> >
> https://github.com/hortonworks/ratis/commit/ae25f1c1fd9c09feb89beb1fb83a28
> >21ca231e36
> >
> >
> >John
> >
> >On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:58 PM Jitendra Pandey  >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Please check the ip-clearance form for a software grant for Ratis source
> >> to the ASF by Hortonworks Inc.
> >>
> >> http://incubator.staging.apache.org/ip-clearance/ratis.html
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> jitendra
> >>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[Jitendra Pandey]

A software grant document
(https://www.apache.org/licenses/software-grant.txt) from Hortonworks has
already been filed with secret...@apache.org, and has been ack-ed.


On 2/21/17, 5:28 PM, "John D. Ament"  wrote:

>Please note that IP Clearance is not for new projects, it is for code
>donations.  In this case, we would expect an SGA from Hortonworks, or
>nothing since the project is already Apache licensed.
>
>Even going as far back as the first commit, it was licensed to the Apache
>Software Foundation -
>https://github.com/hortonworks/ratis/commit/ae25f1c1fd9c09feb89beb1fb83a28
>21ca231e36
>
>
>John
>
>On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:58 PM Jitendra Pandey 
>wrote:
>
>> Please check the ip-clearance form for a software grant for Ratis source
>> to the ASF by Hortonworks Inc.
>>
>> http://incubator.staging.apache.org/ip-clearance/ratis.html
>>
>> Thanks
>> jitendra
>>


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 8:33 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Even going as far back as the first commit, it was licensed to the
> Apache Software Foundation
>
> Perhaps a silly question. I expected the initial commit to be ALv2 but not
> licensed to the ASF. Can you license something to the ASF without
> permission?
>
>
I'm pretty sure I brought this up on legal-discuss before.  Its not
incorrect, but they are openly giving access to the code to the ASF.  The
ASF can choose to ignore that license if they want.


> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Even going as far back as the first commit, it was licensed to the Apache 
> Software Foundation

Perhaps a silly question. I expected the initial commit to be ALv2 but not 
licensed to the ASF. Can you license something to the ASF without permission?

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Gobblin to enter Apache Incubator

[Naresh Agarwal]

+1 (non binding). We had used Gobblin in past and found it quite powerful.
Looking forward to a exciting road-map ahead in Gobblin.

Thanks
Naresh

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:31 AM, Abhishek Tiwari <
abhishektiwari.bt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Abhishek
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Olivier Lamy  wrote:
>
> > Hi Craig
> >
> > On 20 February 2017 at 00:23, Craig Russell 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Olivier,
> > >
> > > Can you also post the link to this proposal on
> https://wiki.apache.org/
> > > incubator/ProjectProposals ?
> > >
> >
> > Sure. done.
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Olivier Lamy  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Everyone,
> > > > I would like to call a vote for accepting "Gobblin" for incubation in
> > the
> > > > Apache Incubator.
> > > > The full proposal is available below, and is also available in the
> > wiki:
> > > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GobblinProposal
> > > >
> > >
> > > Craig L Russell
> > > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> > > c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Olivier Lamy
> > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >
>

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[John D. Ament]

Please note that IP Clearance is not for new projects, it is for code
donations.  In this case, we would expect an SGA from Hortonworks, or
nothing since the project is already Apache licensed.

Even going as far back as the first commit, it was licensed to the Apache
Software Foundation -
https://github.com/hortonworks/ratis/commit/ae25f1c1fd9c09feb89beb1fb83a2821ca231e36


John

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:58 PM Jitendra Pandey 
wrote:

> Please check the ip-clearance form for a software grant for Ratis source
> to the ASF by Hortonworks Inc.
>
> http://incubator.staging.apache.org/ip-clearance/ratis.html
>
> Thanks
> jitendra
>

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Look fine to me, no binary files, source code has headers.

BTW your LICENSE is referring to dependancies (including a EPL license one) 
rather than what is bundled inside the repo (which strangely are not 
mentioned), but that’s not an IP clearance issue.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[IP CLEARANCE] Software grant for Ratis (incubating)

[Jitendra Pandey]

Please check the ip-clearance form for a software grant for Ratis source to the 
ASF by Hortonworks Inc.

http://incubator.staging.apache.org/ip-clearance/ratis.html

Thanks
jitendra

Re: Podling Graduation Rally

[Upayavira]

I think that nothing is likely to change in the project - it is going to
go on the same as this for a long time. If it is ready, it is right on
the bottom of minimal. It does have enough prospective PMC members, but
just enough - maybe 4 or 5.

It has made a release, and it has just managed a source code donation,
and it has accepted new committers.

I am starting to consider that this has to be sufficient activity to
justify graduation, although it is certainly on the lower limit.

Thoughts?

Upayavira

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017, at 03:16 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Upayavira,
> 
> I've pinged the podling in the past about graduation.  *I* think you're
> ready.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:15 PM Upayavira  wrote:
> 
> > I would appreciate assistance in deciding whether Wave needs more than
> > its current slow, but not stationary, development.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2017, at 06:07 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > > Awesome news, thanks everyone.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:17 PM Suneel Marthi 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Streams was also called as 'Ready to graduate' in the December report.
> > > >
> > > > Since Oct 2016, the podling has had 3 releases and another release is
> > > > planned for this weekend.
> > > >
> > > > There have been discussions on the podIing mail lists about graduation
> > > > following the next planned release. I can help push forward Streams
> > > > graduation and the podling has satisfied most of the Apache Maturity
> > > > Assessment -  see
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/STREAMS/Apache+Maturity+Model+Assessment+for+Streams
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Pierre Smits 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi John,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I guess it should be
> > > > brought
> > > > > back regularly so that participants here stay on the ball.
> > > > >
> > > > > That being said, I believe Trafodion should also be considered to be
> > > > ready.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Pierre Smits
> > > > >
> > > > > ORRTIZ.COM 
> > > > > OFBiz based solutions & services
> > > > >
> > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:28 PM, John D. Ament <
> > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As mentioned in this month's report, there are 63 active podlings.
> > > > While
> > > > > > I've been chasing retiring podlings, I think it would be good for
> > the
> > > > > > community as a whole to look closely as podlings and see what we
> > can do
> > > > > to
> > > > > > graduate podlings that seem to be doing well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Take a look at the last two reports:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2017
> > > > > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2017
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Last month, I listed 4 podlings that appear to have completed all
> > > > > > graduation requirements, but remain in the incubator (Airflow,
> > BatchEE,
> > > > > > Freemarker, Metron).  I didn't include that in February, but if I
> > had
> > > > to
> > > > > > list the names, it would be: CarbonData, Edgent, Fineract,
> > Guacamole,
> > > > > > PredictionIO, SystemML, Tamaya, Unomi (but that's entirely my
> > > > POV/opinion
> > > > > > unless others want to chime in).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I'm curious, what can others do to help these 12 podlings get
> > past
> > > > the
> > > > > > finish line?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Podling Graduation Rally

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:15 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>>  wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:31 AM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So are we saying that the code modifications are sub-licensed? Or
>> >> re-licensed?
>> >
>> > Think of each file as the result of layering changesets on top of each
>> > other.  Each changeset has its own copyright holder and each copyright
>> > holder grants a license.
>> >
>> > When all changesets have the same license, then the end product has
>> > uniform licensing, even though many entities hold continue to hold
>> > copyright.
>> >
>> > However, it is also possible that changesets may be granted under
>> > different licenses -- in which case, the end product has heterogeneous
>> > licensing.  It may not be possible to slice up the file into code blocks
>> > which are under one license exclusively. Instead, if you want clean
>> > divisions by license you have to go back to the changesets.
>> >
>> > For BSD-2-clause files which came in with MADlib but were not relicensed
>> > (because not all authors participated in the SGA), we are saying that
>> > changesets submitted after arrival at the ASF shall be under Apache-2.0.
>>
>> I think we all agree on what's going on and I believe (although correct
>> me if I'm putting words in your mouth John) that we all feel the current
>> situation with MADlib is NOT against any policy of ASF.
>>
>>
> Not 100%.  We are saying that code modifications should have been under
> apache license, but they were still under BSD as of the release from last
> year.  Its nothing that I believe would have put the foundation in any
> negative situation.

The ARE under Apache License -- we are all in agreement there. We simply
lack tools to make this very fine grain statement.

Does it make it clearer? Are we in agreement now?

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Release of Apache Tephra-0.11.0-incubating [rc1]

[Gokul Gunasekaran]

I would like to cancel the vote for Apache Tephra 0.11.0-incubating
release. This is because we found a last minute major bug TEPHRA-223. After
fixing the bug, we will restart the release process with a new release
candidate.

Thanks,
Gokul

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:45 PM, James Taylor 
wrote:

> IMHO, this bug is serious enough to be a showstopper. There's no workaround
> for it in depent projects such as Phoenix. How about we roll another RC
> with a fix today?
>
> Other non Apache projects don't need to wait until the release closes (or
> could even rely on non released bits).
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 3:21 PM Poorna Chandra  wrote:
>
> > Hey James,
> >
> > There are other projects that depend on the 0.11.0 release, and need it
> in
> > the next couple of days. This bug can be worked around in the dependent
> > projects.
> >
> > I suggest letting this release go through by marking TEPHRA-223 as a
> known
> > issue. We can do a 0.11.1 release immediately after fixing TEPHRA-223.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Poorna.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 2:37 PM, James Taylor 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Looks like a serious issue was found with TEPHRA-223, so switching my
> > vote
> > > to -1. Hopefully we can get a quick fix with a new RC very soon.
> > >
> > > James
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Alan Gates 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Forwarding my +1 from the dev list.
> > > >
> > > > Alan.
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 17, 2017, at 11:52 AM, James Taylor  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Transferring my +1 from the dev list vote over here.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Gokul Gunasekaran <
> > go...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is a call for a vote on releasing Apache Tephra
> > > 0.11.0-incubating,
> > > > >> release candidate 1. This is the fourth release of Tephra.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Apache Tephra community has voted and approved the release.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vote thread:
> > > > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tephra-
> > > > >> dev/201702.mbox/%
> > > > >> 3CCAFgkoWEmagPPMPLREsK2CvWmS97_g0AE_1Bd7P1UWXbc3wYv-g%40mail
> > > .gmail.com
> > > > %3E
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Result thread:
> > > > >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-tephra-
> > > > >> dev/201702.mbox/%3CCAFgkoWE4T5PoieC4aPQWK040i5L
> > > > >> VHwbvnZ%2BH%3DnqwGu_O96Yf9A%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found
> > > at:
> > > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tephra/0.11
> > > > >> .0-incubating-rc1/src
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The tag to be voted upon is v0.11.0-incubating:
> > > > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-tephra.g
> > > > >> it;a=shortlog;h=refs/tags/v0.11.0-incubating
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The release hash is d6327007b6240c9b2605c2e8d91ca9ac92ecedfc:
> > > > >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-tephra.g
> > > > >> it;a=commit;h=d6327007b6240c9b2605c2e8d91ca9ac92ecedfc
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Nexus Staging URL:
> > > > >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
> > > orgapachetephra-1006
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > >> http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/gokul
> > > > >>
> > > > >> KEYS file available:
> > > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tephra/KEYS
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > > > >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tephra/0.11
> > > > >> .0-incubating-rc1/CHANGES.txt
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Tephra
> > > 0.11.0-incubating
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Tephra 0.11.0-incubating
> > > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> Gokul
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Podling Graduation Rally

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:52 PM Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey
>  wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:31 AM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >
> >> So are we saying that the code modifications are sub-licensed? Or
> >> re-licensed?
> >
> > Think of each file as the result of layering changesets on top of each
> > other.  Each changeset has its own copyright holder and each copyright
> > holder grants a license.
> >
> > When all changesets have the same license, then the end product has
> > uniform licensing, even though many entities hold continue to hold
> > copyright.
> >
> > However, it is also possible that changesets may be granted under
> > different licenses -- in which case, the end product has heterogeneous
> > licensing.  It may not be possible to slice up the file into code blocks
> > which are under one license exclusively. Instead, if you want clean
> > divisions by license you have to go back to the changesets.
> >
> > For BSD-2-clause files which came in with MADlib but were not relicensed
> > (because not all authors participated in the SGA), we are saying that
> > changesets submitted after arrival at the ASF shall be under Apache-2.0.
>
> I think we all agree on what's going on and I believe (although correct
> me if I'm putting words in your mouth John) that we all feel the current
> situation with MADlib is NOT against any policy of ASF.
>
>
Not 100%.  We are saying that code modifications should have been under
apache license, but they were still under BSD as of the release from last
year.  Its nothing that I believe would have put the foundation in any
negative situation.


> The real question is how do we communicate it to a downstream consumer.
>
> There are two tools we have: a LICENSE file at the root of the project tree
> and individual license headers in each of the files. Neither of these tools
> are precise enough to address the subtlety that changesets may be granted
> under different licenses. IOW, there's no perfect solution here and we have
> to unblock the podling by making a decision that will be *less* than
> precise.
>
> I really hope we can all agree on that.
>
> Initially, I was very happy with the solution endorsed by Marvin and VP of
> Legal
> https://s.apache.org/EOT5
> In fact I thought that in conjunction with the statement in LICENSE file
> it would be OK to modify the files and still NOT add ALv2 header (only
> brand new files created throughout the ASF lifetime of the project will
> get the proper AL header).
>
> It seems that this assumption is now being challenged and as such we
> NO LONGER have a path forward for the podling.
>
> John, am I capturing your concerns correctly?
>
>
Yes.  Basically, the notion put forth in the email you linked to is no
longer valid since the podling has modified the code that came in under BSD.

But again, please tell me if I'm misunderstanding the changes that have
gone in.


> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc6 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
(incubating) version 0.1.0.

A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.

PPMC vote result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44231a84f4034482b81bd034d800e1f03243e21894da8550a75ae389@

PPMC vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f5decfdd2e44ea310253ab037239713c5a4cfbb0d9f733b1197ffddf@

The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc6
(51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7), located here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7

All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc6/

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc

The list of keys associated with Toree is available at:
https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc

Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1006/

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!

The vote is open for a minimum of 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

To learn more about Apache Toree, please see
http://toree.incubator.apache.org/

Instructions on testing Apache Toree can be found in the vote thread.

Re: Podling Graduation Rally

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Marvin Humphrey
 wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:31 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
>
>> So are we saying that the code modifications are sub-licensed? Or
>> re-licensed?
>
> Think of each file as the result of layering changesets on top of each
> other.  Each changeset has its own copyright holder and each copyright
> holder grants a license.
>
> When all changesets have the same license, then the end product has
> uniform licensing, even though many entities hold continue to hold
> copyright.
>
> However, it is also possible that changesets may be granted under
> different licenses -- in which case, the end product has heterogeneous
> licensing.  It may not be possible to slice up the file into code blocks
> which are under one license exclusively. Instead, if you want clean
> divisions by license you have to go back to the changesets.
>
> For BSD-2-clause files which came in with MADlib but were not relicensed
> (because not all authors participated in the SGA), we are saying that
> changesets submitted after arrival at the ASF shall be under Apache-2.0.

I think we all agree on what's going on and I believe (although correct
me if I'm putting words in your mouth John) that we all feel the current
situation with MADlib is NOT against any policy of ASF.

The real question is how do we communicate it to a downstream consumer.

There are two tools we have: a LICENSE file at the root of the project tree
and individual license headers in each of the files. Neither of these tools
are precise enough to address the subtlety that changesets may be granted
under different licenses. IOW, there's no perfect solution here and we have
to unblock the podling by making a decision that will be *less* than precise.

I really hope we can all agree on that.

Initially, I was very happy with the solution endorsed by Marvin and VP of Legal
https://s.apache.org/EOT5
In fact I thought that in conjunction with the statement in LICENSE file
it would be OK to modify the files and still NOT add ALv2 header (only
brand new files created throughout the ASF lifetime of the project will
get the proper AL header).

It seems that this assumption is now being challenged and as such we
NO LONGER have a path forward for the podling.

John, am I capturing your concerns correctly?

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Gobblin to enter Apache Incubator

[Abhishek Tiwari]

+1 (non-binding)

Abhishek

On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Olivier Lamy  wrote:

> Hi Craig
>
> On 20 February 2017 at 00:23, Craig Russell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Olivier,
> >
> > Can you also post the link to this proposal on https://wiki.apache.org/
> > incubator/ProjectProposals ?
> >
>
> Sure. done.
>
> Olivier
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Olivier Lamy  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone,
> > > I would like to call a vote for accepting "Gobblin" for incubation in
> the
> > > Apache Incubator.
> > > The full proposal is available below, and is also available in the
> wiki:
> > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/GobblinProposal
> > >
> >
> > Craig L Russell
> > Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> > c...@apache.org http://db.apache.org/jdo
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Olivier Lamy
> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>

Re: Podling Graduation Rally

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 6:31 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:

> So are we saying that the code modifications are sub-licensed? Or
> re-licensed?

Think of each file as the result of layering changesets on top of each
other.  Each changeset has its own copyright holder and each copyright
holder grants a license.

When all changesets have the same license, then the end product has
uniform licensing, even though many entities hold continue to hold
copyright.

However, it is also possible that changesets may be granted under
different licenses -- in which case, the end product has heterogeneous
licensing.  It may not be possible to slice up the file into code blocks
which are under one license exclusively. Instead, if you want clean
divisions by license you have to go back to the changesets.

For BSD-2-clause files which came in with MADlib but were not relicensed
(because not all authors participated in the SGA), we are saying that
changesets submitted after arrival at the ASF shall be under Apache-2.0.

PS: This workflow is not possible when the first license has reciprocity
requirements (i.e. it's a "copyleft" license like GPL or MPL),
because a key condition of such licenses is that the copyright
holder for subsequent changesets must make them available under the
original license.  However, BSD licenses do not impose such a
restriction, so it's valid to create an ALv2 changeset to apply on
top of a BSD file.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adding committers to a PPMC

[Henri Yandell]

Doh - the UI meant I assumed I didn't have permissions as all I got on
clicking + was a Search field. I will give that feedback to the whimsical
project. I was also assuming that Whimsy gets the data from somewhere
rather than being the original source.

Thanks Craig,

Hen

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:14 AM, Craig Russell 
wrote:

> Hi Hen,
>
> At the bottom of the PPMC list is a big bold “+”. If you click on that,
> you can add apache ids to the PPMC.
>
> HTH,
>
> Craig
>
> > On Feb 20, 2017, at 11:36 PM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> >
> > When I look at https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/mxnet - I only see
> the
> > mentors for the project listed on the PPMC. Any idea what I need to
> modify
> > to add the  original committers from the proposal to the PPMC?
> >
> > Or do the mentors have to bootstrap and vote them all on?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Hen
>
> Craig L Russell
> c...@apache.org
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC11)

[Dan Kirkwood]

Hello Incubator PMC,

The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating.  We now
kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
incubator release.

The VOTE RESULT is here:

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/dc3ba61d2834579a6e7237df08d828b61011a6cb087e1948be70c78a@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E

The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:

http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/

The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC11":
https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC11

The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC11/

Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is included
in the source artifact.

Artifacts have been signed with the "dang...@apache.org" key listed in:

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS

Please review and vote:

[  ] +1 Approve the release
[  ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)

This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

Thanks,

- Dan

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Podling Graduation Rally

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:49 AM Marvin Humphrey 
wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Mike Jumper 
> wrote:
> > AFAIK, only the copyright holder can relicense a copyrighted work,
> whereas
> > others may sublicense under compatible terms so long as the original
> > license grants that permission (ie: the license of the original work is
> not
> > actually changing).
> >
> > Is that not correct?
>
> Correct, and well said!
>
> When we assert that an Apache release package is available under the
> ALv2 even though it bundles BSD-2-clause licensed code (as is the case
> with MADlib), we are suggesting that the ALv2 "subsumes" the
> BSD-2-clause license -- that fulfilling all the requirements of the
> ALv2 suffices to fulfill all the requirements of the BSD-2-clause
> license.
>
> This is sometimes called "sublicensing", and it only works in one
> direction: a license with more restrictions can subsume one with
> fewer, but not the other way around.
>
> In contrast, "relicensing" is usually taken to mean the original
> copyright holder granting an *additional* license of any type. For
> example, if you're the copyright holder, you can take something which
> is available only under a proprietary license and make it available
> under an open source license.  Or you could take something available
> under the GPL and make it available under the ALv2.
>
> (Of course the difficulty of "relicensing" in the context of open
> source is that there may be many copyright holders who need to
> participate in a relicensing effort -- and if you can't get them all
> on board, you might have to strip out and replace code that couldn't
> be relicensed.)
>
> For more information on combining software under multiple open source
> licenses, I like this article by Luis Villa:
>
>
> https://opensource.com/law/11/9/mpl-20-copyleft-and-license-compatibility
>
> This is outdated but still a good read:
>
>http://www.catb.org/esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html#compatibility
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>


So are we saying that the code modifications are sub-licensed? Or
re-licensed?


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Adding committers to a PPMC

[Craig Russell]

Hi Hen,

At the bottom of the PPMC list is a big bold “+”. If you click on that, you can 
add apache ids to the PPMC.

HTH,

Craig

> On Feb 20, 2017, at 11:36 PM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> 
> When I look at https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/mxnet - I only see the
> mentors for the project listed on the PPMC. Any idea what I need to modify
> to add the  original committers from the proposal to the PPMC?
> 
> Or do the mentors have to bootstrap and vote them all on?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hen

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Adding committers to a PPMC

[John D. Ament]

This is probably a better question for dev@whimsical, the IPMC provided no
input on how to implement this.  There are no requirements from the IPMC to
have people appear on these pages.

John

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:36 AM Henri Yandell  wrote:

> When I look at https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/ppmc/mxnet - I only see
> the
> mentors for the project listed on the PPMC. Any idea what I need to modify
> to add the  original committers from the proposal to the PPMC?
>
> Or do the mentors have to bootstrap and vote them all on?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen
>