Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis Thirdparty Incubating Release 0.5.0 rc0
+1 (non-binding) - Verified all checksums and signatures. - Checked DISCLAIMER LICENSE and NOTICE. - Built from source successfully. - Passed all unit tests. Thanks for working on this! Tsz-Wo On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:40 AM Uma Maheswara Rao G wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > Built from source and tests passed. > RAT report clean. > LICENSE and NOTICE looks good. > Incubating tag exist in the release file. > > Regards, > Uma > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:27 AM Lokesh Jain wrote: > > > Hi Apache Ratis IPMC, > > > > Apache Ratis Thirdpardy 0.5.0-rc0 release is just passed on the PPMC vote. > > The vote thread can be found at > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re5bc083d795839c5a1267c7c65d4106b6059de22357e46601ce2f8fc%40%3Cdev.ratis.apache.org%3E > > < > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re5bc083d795839c5a1267c7c65d4106b6059de22357e46601ce2f8fc@%3Cdev.ratis.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > Apache Ratis is an embeddable Raft implementation but this release > > artifact is only the packaging of some of the 3rd party dependencies. > > > > The git tag to be voted upon: > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git=shortlog;a=tag;h=refs/tags/0.5.0-rc0 > > < > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git=shortlog;a=tag;h=refs/tags/0.5.0-rc0 > > > > > > > The git commit hash: > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git;a=commit;h=c483b55186d10a99a37bbb8419c81a2ddcbe34bb > > < > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git;a=commit;h=c483b55186d10a99a37bbb8419c81a2ddcbe34bb > > > > > > > The source and binary tarballs can be found at: > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/thirdparty/0.5.0/rc0/ > > < > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/thirdparty/0.5.0/rc0/ > > > > > The fingerprint of key to sign release artifacts: > > 33C4 1949 16C6 A4DD A6A6 A8BF C038 41BD 42EF CC9D > > > > Release artifacts are signed with one of the keys available at: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/KEYS < > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/KEYS> > > > > This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. (2020-06-27 00:00 IST) > > > > Please vote on releasing this RC. Thank you in advance. > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > Starting with my +1(non-binding). > > > > Regards, > > Lokesh Jain - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DolphinScheduler (Incubating) 1.3.0 (ROUND2)
Hi +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name, all source files have ASF headers - signatures and hashes are ok - LICENSE and NOTICE are ok - No binary files Regards Liang -- Sent from: http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DataSketches-hive 1.1.0-incubating-RC1
Hi +1(binding) Regards Liang -- Sent from: http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache DataSketches-cpp 2.0.0-incubating-rc4
Hi +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name, all source files have ASF headers - signatures and hashes are ok - LICENSE and NOTICE are ok - No binary files Regards Liang -- Sent from: http://apache-incubator-general.996316.n3.nabble.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17144588#comment-17144588
]
Bob Paulin commented on INCUBATOR-253:
--
Based on some of the replies here there does seem to be some confusion around
where the license ends and the trademark begins. There are a number of good
resource on how the ASF enforces it's trademarks here [1]. The separation of
the license from the trademark is defined in the ASF license
{code:java}
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant
permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product
names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use
in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the
NOTICE file. {code}
I would recommend the PPMC take a look at these resources to gain some
insights. These policies have been around for some time. Many of these
comments may appear to be individual opinions however they are consistent with
prior VPs of Brand Management.
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources#slides
> Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
> -
>
> Key: INCUBATOR-253
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253
> Project: Incubator
> Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Justin Mclean
>Assignee: Justin Mclean
>Priority: Major
>
> The main issues are:
> 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code.
> 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code.
> 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code.
> 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non
> (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases.
> 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code.
> 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code.
> 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code.
> 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code.
> 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases.
> 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases.
> 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable
> https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io
> 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io /
> https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code.
> 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is
> not.
> 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g.
> https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html)
> For PiPy see:
> https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/
> For Docker see:
> https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet
> For web site pages see:
> https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started?
> https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download
> I may of missed something, if so please add it.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17144361#comment-17144361 ] Sheng Zha commented on INCUBATOR-253: - By the way, I have of course read the LEGAL-515 that we created, and we are discussing the CUDA licensing and distribution requirements in LEGAL-516. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17144354#comment-17144354 ] Sheng Zha edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 6/24/20, 8:26 PM: --- > Justin: 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark > policies they need to comply with. In general they would also need to be > based on released code. > Sheng: I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that > the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as > long as the conditions are met. > Justin: The incubator has every right to ask podlings to comply with ASF > policy. ASF policy is on top of what the Apache License allows. Agreed on the last comment. This is truism and (I believe) not relevant here, given that we were talking about third-party releases. I included the full context above for your convenience. The responsibility of the PPMC in this case would be to make sure users of our project are sufficiently notified that these are not first-party releases and that they contain additional components that pose further restriction than what ALv2 license grants, and the third-party use complies with legal and trademark requirements. And we the PPMC fully intend to do so. As mentioned, we will propose the option we want to pursue in full observation of the Apache's policies and we can continue the discussion on how to do this properly. > The incubator also has the right to terminate a project if it doesn't comply >with policy. Please realize that if certain constraints affect the viability of our ecosystem, a threat to terminate carries little weight to us. Also, one difficulty we've been having is caused by individuals imposing their opinions as policies on us. Examples include draft release policies that haven't sufficiently considered podling's release needs or passed proper Apache processes. That said, we are still working hard to find a way to make MXNet viable in Apache incubator. In the unfortunate circumstances in which this is no longer possible, or that we have policy violations that the incubator can no longer tolerate to the extent that termination is warranted, let us know. At the core, the problem is that GPU acceleration, one of the two pillars of modern deep learning frameworks (w/ the other pillar being auto-differentiation) only receives the status of category-X optional features at Apache. As a result, MXNet has no choice but to seek ways to accommodate both the goal of protecting the freedom for the use of our software and the goal of having a useful deep learning framework. Thus, we test many unclear definitions in the scope of category-X optional features. We also do not expect the situation to change as new hardware accelerator vendors are unlikely to allow reverse engineering which is incompatible with ALv2. There have been several generations of popular deep learning frameworks and we realize now that it's no coincidence that none was in Apache before MXNet. As PPMC, we fully intend to uphold our responsibility of protecting our users from legal risks as part of Apache and we are learning our lessons for this. Keep in mind that we also have the responsibility to be a useful modern deep learning framework. We will not compromise one responsibility for the other. My hope is that the incubator is willing to work with us through rational discussion, and help guide us to our goal in the welcoming way of Apache. was (Author: zhasheng): > Justin: 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark > policies they need to comply with. In general they would also need to be > based on released code. > Sheng: I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that > the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as > long as the conditions are met. > Justin: The incubator has every right to ask podlings to comply with ASF > policy. ASF policy is on top of what the Apache License allows. Agreed on the last comment. This is truism and (I believe) not relevant here, given that we were talking about third-party releases. I included the full context above for your convenience. The responsibility of the PPMC in this case would be to make sure users of our project are sufficiently notified that these are not first-party releases and that they contain additional components that pose further restriction than what ALv2 license grants. And we the PPMC fully intend to do so. As mentioned, we will propose the option we want to pursue in full observation of the Apache's policies and we can continue the discussion on how to do this properly. > The incubator also has the right to terminate a project if it doesn't comply >with policy. Please realize that if certain constraints affect the viability of our ecosystem, a
[jira] [Commented] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17144354#comment-17144354 ] Sheng Zha commented on INCUBATOR-253: - > Justin: 3rd party distribution also have different branding and trademark > policies they need to comply with. In general they would also need to be > based on released code. > Sheng: I don't think the incubator has the right to require this given that > the apache license v2 allows redistribution with or without modification as > long as the conditions are met. > Justin: The incubator has every right to ask podlings to comply with ASF > policy. ASF policy is on top of what the Apache License allows. Agreed on the last comment. This is truism and (I believe) not relevant here, given that we were talking about third-party releases. I included the full context above for your convenience. The responsibility of the PPMC in this case would be to make sure users of our project are sufficiently notified that these are not first-party releases and that they contain additional components that pose further restriction than what ALv2 license grants. And we the PPMC fully intend to do so. As mentioned, we will propose the option we want to pursue in full observation of the Apache's policies and we can continue the discussion on how to do this properly. > The incubator also has the right to terminate a project if it doesn't comply >with policy. Please realize that if certain constraints affect the viability of our ecosystem, a threat to terminate carries little weight to us. Also, one difficulty we've been having is caused by individuals imposing their opinions as policies on us. Examples include draft release policies that haven't sufficiently considered podling's release needs or passed proper Apache processes. That said, we are still working hard to find a way to make MXNet viable in Apache incubator. In the unfortunate circumstances in which this is no longer possible, or that we have policy violations that the incubator can no longer tolerate to the extent that termination is warranted, let us know. At the core, the problem is that GPU acceleration, one of the two pillars of modern deep learning frameworks (w/ the other pillar being auto-differentiation) only receives the status of category-X optional features at Apache. As a result, MXNet has no choice but to seek ways to accommodate both the goal of protecting the freedom for the use of our software and the goal of having a useful deep learning framework. Thus, we test many unclear definitions in the scope of category-X optional features. We also do not expect the situation to change as new hardware accelerator vendors are unlikely to allow reverse engineering which is incompatible with ALv2. There have been several generations of popular deep learning frameworks and we realize now that it's no coincidence that none was in Apache before MXNet. As PPMC, we fully intend to uphold our responsibility of protecting our users from legal risks as part of Apache and we are learning our lessons for this. Keep in mind that we also have the responsibility to be a useful modern deep learning framework. We will not compromise one responsibility for the other. My hope is that the incubator is willing to work with us through rational discussion, and help guide us to our goal in the welcoming way of Apache. > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache DataSketches C++ 2.0.0-incubating released!
Congrats! Furkan KAMACI 於 2020年6月24日 週三 04:54 寫道： > Hi, > > Congrats! > > Kind Regards, > Furkan KAMACI > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:24 PM leerho wrote: > >> Congratulations! And thank you! This was a major release effort! >> >> Lee. >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:06 PM Jon Malkin wrote: >> >>> Hello All, >>> >>> 1. Apache DataSketches C++ 2.0.0-incubating has been released! >>> >>> NOTE 1: This is the core C++ component of the DataSketches library >>> that includes all the sketch algorithms in production-ready packages. >>> This >>> package includes a header-only library and can also build a package for >>> use with Python 3. >>> >>> NOTE 2: This is a new major version using semantic versioning. There >>> are breaking API changes from the 1.x line. It also includes several bug >>> fixes. >>> >>> Vote Thread Permalink: >>> >>> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rfdf8d99742a39f8c47583ed181e79f9973b1f15c5e4ab904b3cbd391%40%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E >>> There were 3 binding (+1) votes: Justin Mclean, Furkan Kamaci, Evans >>> Ye >>> >>> 2. Source repository: >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-datasketches-cpp >>> >>> Git Tag for this release: 90b6689 >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-datasketches-cpp/tree/2.0.x-incubating >>> on branch 2.0.X-incubating >>> >>> 3. Dist/release: >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/datasketches/cpp/2.0.0-incubating/ >>> >>> 4. Build and test instructions: >>> C++ unit tests: >>> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-datasketches-cpp/tree/2.0.x-incubating/README.md >>> Python: >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-datasketches-cpp/blob/2.0.x-incubating/python/README.md >>> >>> Thank you to the IPMC members and community for taking the time to review >>> and provide guidance on our release! >>> >>> On behalf of the Apache DataSketches Community, >>> >>> Jon Malkin >>> jmal...@apache.org >>> >>
RE: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance
Thanks Leonard for the confirmation, I will update the related files based on the consensus. Regards, -Ciyong -Original Message- From: Leonard Lausen Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2020 2:24 AM To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code [WAS] Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of third-party work guidance Hi Ciyong, the consensus passed, so we should proceed according to the consensus. Thank you Leonard On Tue, 2020-06-23 at 09:04 +, Chen, Ciyong wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm wondering if there's any further concerns for this "72 hours lazy > consensus"? > Shall we continue with the option of "I believe PPMC would prefer to > put the ASF header on top of the file (ie. 2 headers)" > > Thanks, > -Ciyong > > -Original Message- > From: Leonard Lausen > Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:06 AM > To: d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] When to add Apache Headers to Third Party Code > [WAS] > Re: [MENTORS] PPMC case-by-case decision for major modifications of > third- party work guidance > > Thank you everyone for your valuable advice. > > > so if you did want to avoid including the license in your releases > > you would either need to rely on the file as an external dependency > > or completely reimplement the functionality not deriving it from > > this file. > > Including the BSD-3 style license in releases wouldn't be a problem, > as it's compatible with Apache License 2. As there are substantial > changes, I believe PPMC would prefer to put the ASF header on top of > the file (ie. 2 headers) [72 hours lazy consensus if there are no > concerns]. We still need to declare all the numpy einsum derived files > in the LICENSE and fix the inconsistency that ASF header was removed > in src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_op-inl.h but remains in > src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_path_op-inl.h > > Related: As PPMC strives to provide partial API compatibility with > NumPy in MXNet 2 based on the NumPy Array Function Protocol [1], could > you clarify if these MXNet operators should be considered derived from > NumPy (thus warranting the BSD-3 style license headers) solely based > on integrating with the NumPy API and providing compatible operators? > Or only (as in the einsum case above), if the actual implementation > was derived from NumPy's implementation. I believe it's the latter, but > please clarify if that's wrong. > > Should ASF update the "Do not add the standard Apache License header > to the top of third-party source files." at [2]? This sentence was the > motivation to open this discussion thread, and according to the > current consensus here is "incomplete". How about adding an "unless > the third-party source file contains major modifications by ASF" to clarify? > > Thank you > Leonard > > [1]: https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0018-array-function-protocol.html > [2]: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party > > On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 09:36 -0400, John D. Ament wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 2:19 PM Bob Paulin wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I agree there does not appear to be consensus on when it's > > > appropriate to add Apache License Headers to Third Party code > > > across projects. Here is Justin's email that request the Apache > > > Headers removed [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > - file copyright NumPy Developers [6] this file look to > > > incorrectly have an ASF header on it > > > 6. ./src/operator/numpy/np_einsum_path_op-inl.h > > > > > > > > > We want to make the choice that will be most sustainable for the > > > project and most correct for the situation. > > > > > > Based on the emails I linked in the prior email it does seem like > > > the cases where dual headers are appropriate is when there are > > > Major Modifications. In the case of > > > > > > np_einsum_path_op-inl.h > > > > > > The file is derived from the implementation in Numpy [2]. If the > > > implementation in Numpy changes will this file change? If so then > > > the community will be tasked with continuing to re-port the > > > changes over that is always based on Numpy so it may be more > > > appropriate to just keep the Numpy license. > > > > > > Will MXNet likely evolve this file in a way that it's no longer > > > resembles the Numpy implementation (Major Modification)? If so it > > > may be better to keep the Apache Header as going forward the file > > > will represent the work of the MXNet community not that of Numpy. > > > > > > > Keeping the (what appears to be) BSD-3 style license is perfectly > > fine and is in fact what the NumPy license says to do. We would > > only change the license from the NumPy license to ALv2 if an SGA or > > ICLA is received from all contributors historically on this file. > > No matter how drastic of modifications the MxNet
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis Thirdparty Incubating Release 0.5.0 rc0
+1 (binding) Built from source and tests passed. RAT report clean. LICENSE and NOTICE looks good. Incubating tag exist in the release file. Regards, Uma On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:27 AM Lokesh Jain wrote: > Hi Apache Ratis IPMC, > > Apache Ratis Thirdpardy 0.5.0-rc0 release is just passed on the PPMC vote. > The vote thread can be found at > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re5bc083d795839c5a1267c7c65d4106b6059de22357e46601ce2f8fc%40%3Cdev.ratis.apache.org%3E > < > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re5bc083d795839c5a1267c7c65d4106b6059de22357e46601ce2f8fc@%3Cdev.ratis.apache.org%3E > > > > Apache Ratis is an embeddable Raft implementation but this release > artifact is only the packaging of some of the 3rd party dependencies. > > The git tag to be voted upon: > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git=shortlog;a=tag;h=refs/tags/0.5.0-rc0 > < > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git=shortlog;a=tag;h=refs/tags/0.5.0-rc0 > > > > The git commit hash: > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git;a=commit;h=c483b55186d10a99a37bbb8419c81a2ddcbe34bb > < > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git;a=commit;h=c483b55186d10a99a37bbb8419c81a2ddcbe34bb > > > > The source and binary tarballs can be found at: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/thirdparty/0.5.0/rc0/ > < > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/thirdparty/0.5.0/rc0/ > > > The fingerprint of key to sign release artifacts: > 33C4 1949 16C6 A4DD A6A6 A8BF C038 41BD 42EF CC9D > > Release artifacts are signed with one of the keys available at: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/KEYS < > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/KEYS> > > This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. (2020-06-27 00:00 IST) > > Please vote on releasing this RC. Thank you in advance. > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > Starting with my +1(non-binding). > > Regards, > Lokesh Jain
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ratis Thirdparty Incubating Release 0.5.0 rc0
+1 (binding) Valid source tarball Valid signatures NOTICE, LICENSE present, look ok -jitendra On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 4:19 PM Xiaoyu Yao wrote: > +1 > > - Download Source and verify signatures and checksums > - Build successfully on Java 8. > +hit one build issue with Java11(tracked by RATIS-986) > - Run all unit test > > Thanks, > Xiaoyu > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:23 PM Arpit Agarwal > > wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > - RC is in the right location > > - Incubating in name > > - Source matches git tag, no unexpected binaries > > - DISCLAIMER/LICENSE/NOTICE look ok > > - Verified signatures and checksums > > - Built from source > > - Successfully built Ratis using the generated thirdparty jars > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 2020, at 11:27 AM, Lokesh Jain wrote: > > > > > > Hi Apache Ratis IPMC, > > > > > > Apache Ratis Thirdpardy 0.5.0-rc0 release is just passed on the PPMC > > vote. The vote thread can be found at > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re5bc083d795839c5a1267c7c65d4106b6059de22357e46601ce2f8fc%40%3Cdev.ratis.apache.org%3E > > < > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re5bc083d795839c5a1267c7c65d4106b6059de22357e46601ce2f8fc@%3Cdev.ratis.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > Apache Ratis is an embeddable Raft implementation but this release > > artifact is only the packaging of some of the 3rd party dependencies. > > > > > > The git tag to be voted upon: > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git=shortlog;a=tag;h=refs/tags/0.5.0-rc0 > > < > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git=shortlog;a=tag;h=refs/tags/0.5.0-rc0 > > > > > > > > > The git commit hash: > > > > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git;a=commit;h=c483b55186d10a99a37bbb8419c81a2ddcbe34bb > > < > > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ratis-thirdparty.git;a=commit;h=c483b55186d10a99a37bbb8419c81a2ddcbe34bb > > > > > > > > > The source and binary tarballs can be found at: > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/thirdparty/0.5.0/rc0/ > > < > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/thirdparty/0.5.0/rc0/ > > > > > > The fingerprint of key to sign release artifacts: > > > 33C4 1949 16C6 A4DD A6A6 A8BF C038 41BD 42EF CC9D > > > > > > Release artifacts are signed with one of the keys available at: > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/KEYS < > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/ratis/KEYS> > > > > > > This vote will remain open for at least 72 hours. (2020-06-27 00:00 > IST) > > > > > > Please vote on releasing this RC. Thank you in advance. > > > > > > [ ] +1 approve > > > [ ] +0 no opinion > > > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) > > > > > > Starting with my +1(non-binding). > > > > > > Regards, > > > Lokesh Jain > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
