[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating RC #1

[Aljoscha Krettek]

There are 5 approving votes, all of which are binding:

* Sergio Fernández
* Seetharam Venkatesh
* Justin Mclean
* Jean-Baptise Onofré
* John D. Ament

There are no disapproving votes.

We'll proceed with this release as staged.

Thanks everyone!


-- Forwarded message -
From: Aljoscha Krettek <aljos...@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 at 14:10
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating
To: <general@incubator.apache.org>


The specified duration is over, I'm hereby closing the vote. Thanks a lot
for your participation!

I'll tally the results in a separate thread.

Cheers,
Aljoscha

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 at 21:26 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:

I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release.  Other issues are issues
outside of this podling's domain.

John

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and
> accept
> > that a rat check won't work on the release?
>
> IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few
> more hits, but none IMO are cause for concern.
>
>
> Agreed, the rat/DEPENDENCIES file is a non-issue for the release.
>
> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
>
>
>
> It it picked up any source files without headers (which it doesn’t) it
> would be OK to fix for the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Aljoscha Krettek]

The specified duration is over, I'm hereby closing the vote. Thanks a lot
for your participation!

I'll tally the results in a separate thread.

Cheers,
Aljoscha

On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 at 21:26 John D. Ament  wrote:

> I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release.  Other issues are issues
> outside of this podling's domain.
>
> John
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and
> > accept
> > > that a rat check won't work on the release?
> >
> > IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a
> few
> > more hits, but none IMO are cause for concern.
> >
> >
> > Agreed, the rat/DEPENDENCIES file is a non-issue for the release.
> >
> > -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > It it picked up any source files without headers (which it doesn’t) it
> > would be OK to fix for the next release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[John D. Ament]

I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release.  Other issues are issues
outside of this podling's domain.

John

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM John D. Ament  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and
> accept
> > that a rat check won't work on the release?
>
> IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few
> more hits, but none IMO are cause for concern.
>
>
> Agreed, the rat/DEPENDENCIES file is a non-issue for the release.
>
> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
>
>
>
> It it picked up any source files without headers (which it doesn’t) it
> would be OK to fix for the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Craig Russell]

> On Oct 30, 2016, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> Craig,
> 
> Your definition matches my definition from 3 years ago, which I had used
> for a long while until someone told me I'm wrong.  Are you on legal
> discuss?  Let's move this over there.

Even better, there is already a JIRA for what appears to be relevant to this 
issue:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-198#

Folks on legal-discuss can tune into that discussion, and may not be looking at 
the Beam vote thread.

Craig
> 
> On Oct 30, 2016 10:50, "Craig Russell"  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
 On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament 
>>> wrote:
 
 On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean 
 wrote:
 
> Hi,
> 
>> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
> 
> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
> kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I
> thought
> this would cover it? [1]
> 
 
 I obviously have a different take than you.  I'm more worried about the
 derived works aspect of the license as it stands.
>>> 
>>> What part of the release is a “derived work”?
>>> 
>> 
>> I consider the library to be the derived work (I know on the JIRA there's
>> some discussion over that).
>> 
>> I'm still a bit lost on how Cat X licenses can be included as
> dependencies,
>> seems to go against https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
>> 
> Here’s my take:
> 
> I believe the relevant part of legal are
> https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited
> and https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#optional
> 
> Just to be clear on terminology in this use case: The kinesis library is
> category-x and cannot be distributed by an Apache project under any
> circumstances. And cannot be put into source control.
> 
> The spark-kinesis module that was written by the project and does not
> contain any library code is optional and depends on the library. Building
> the module dynamically links to the library using the build tools. The
> module can be distributed in source and convenience binary forms.
> 
> There are no derived works regarding the library and module.
> 
> Craig
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Craig
 
 
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> 
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 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

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: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[John D. Ament]

Craig,

Your definition matches my definition from 3 years ago, which I had used
for a long while until someone told me I'm wrong.  Are you on legal
discuss?  Let's move this over there.

On Oct 30, 2016 10:50, "Craig Russell"  wrote:


> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi,

> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.

 Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
 kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I
thought
 this would cover it? [1]

>>>
>>> I obviously have a different take than you.  I'm more worried about the
>>> derived works aspect of the license as it stands.
>>
>> What part of the release is a “derived work”?
>>
>
> I consider the library to be the derived work (I know on the JIRA there's
> some discussion over that).
>
> I'm still a bit lost on how Cat X licenses can be included as
dependencies,
> seems to go against https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
>
Here’s my take:

I believe the relevant part of legal are
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited
and https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#optional

Just to be clear on terminology in this use case: The kinesis library is
category-x and cannot be distributed by an Apache project under any
circumstances. And cannot be put into source control.

The spark-kinesis module that was written by the project and does not
contain any library code is optional and depends on the library. Building
the module dynamically links to the library using the build tools. The
module can be distributed in source and convenience binary forms.

There are no derived works regarding the library and module.

Craig
>
>
>>
>> Craig
>>>
>>>

 Thanks,
 Justin

 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org


>>
>> 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
>>
>>

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: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Craig Russell]

> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi,
 
> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
 
 Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
 kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought
 this would cover it? [1]
 
>>> 
>>> I obviously have a different take than you.  I'm more worried about the
>>> derived works aspect of the license as it stands.
>> 
>> What part of the release is a “derived work”?
>> 
> 
> I consider the library to be the derived work (I know on the JIRA there's
> some discussion over that).
> 
> I'm still a bit lost on how Cat X licenses can be included as dependencies,
> seems to go against https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
> 
Here’s my take:

I believe the relevant part of legal are 
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#prohibited
and https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#optional

Just to be clear on terminology in this use case: The kinesis library is 
category-x and cannot be distributed by an Apache project under any 
circumstances. And cannot be put into source control.

The spark-kinesis module that was written by the project and does not contain 
any library code is optional and depends on the library. Building the module 
dynamically links to the library using the build tools. The module can be 
distributed in source and convenience binary forms.

There are no derived works regarding the library and module.

Craig
> 
> 
>> 
>> Craig
>>> 
>>> 
 
 Thanks,
 Justin
 
 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 

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: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[John D. Ament]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell 
wrote:

>
> > On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
> >>
> >> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
> >> kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought
> >> this would cover it? [1]
> >>
> >
> > I obviously have a different take than you.  I'm more worried about the
> > derived works aspect of the license as it stands.
>
> What part of the release is a “derived work”?
>

I consider the library to be the derived work (I know on the JIRA there's
some discussion over that).

I'm still a bit lost on how Cat X licenses can be included as dependencies,
seems to go against https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x



>
> Craig
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >>
> >> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> 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: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Aljoscha,

yes, please, create a Jira, I will take a look.

Thanks,
Regards
JB

On 10/29/2016 09:12 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:

So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept
that a rat check won't work on the release? Should I create an issue for
updating to the lastest Apache maven-parent or do you want to do that, JB
or Dan?

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:54 Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:


Agree.

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:23, at 08:23, Dan Halperin 
wrote:

More on DEPENDENCIES:

The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from
the
RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See
also
the linked issues from the Apache pom [2].

I think that file's presence may be WAI?

[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/pom/tags/maven-
parent-27/pom.xml?revision=1704199=markup#l1029
[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/isis/isis-
core/isis-1.13.0-source-release.zip
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-184

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré

wrote:


Thanks Justin.

Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.

Thanks again
Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean



wrote:

Hi,

Changing my vote to +1 (binding).


Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope

provided, I don't think it's an issue.

In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no

nothing

about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
find.

This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but

not

to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)


Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only

the

ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis).

If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.

Thanks,
Justin


-

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








--
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
jbono...@apache.org
http://blog.nanthrax.net
Talend - http://www.talend.com

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Craig Russell]

> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
>> 
>> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
>> kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought
>> this would cover it? [1]
>> 
> 
> I obviously have a different take than you.  I'm more worried about the
> derived works aspect of the license as it stands.

What part of the release is a “derived work”?

Craig
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> 
>> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 

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: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[John D. Ament]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
>
> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
> kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought
> this would cover it? [1]
>

I obviously have a different take than you.  I'm more worried about the
derived works aspect of the license as it stands.


>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.

Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the kinesis 
library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought this would 
cover it? [1]

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[John D. Ament]

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and
> accept
> > that a rat check won't work on the release?
>
> IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few
> more hits, but none IMO are cause for concern.
>

Agreed, the rat/DEPENDENCIES file is a non-issue for the release.

-1 due to the kinesis library issue.


>
> It it picked up any source files without headers (which it doesn’t) it
> would be OK to fix for the next release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept
> that a rat check won't work on the release?

IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few more 
hits, but none IMO are cause for concern.

It it picked up any source files without headers (which it doesn’t) it would be 
OK to fix for the next release.

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Aljoscha Krettek]

So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept
that a rat check won't work on the release? Should I create an issue for
updating to the lastest Apache maven-parent or do you want to do that, JB
or Dan?

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:54 Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:

> Agree.
>
> Regards
> JB
>
> ⁣​
>
> On Oct 29, 2016, 08:23, at 08:23, Dan Halperin 
> wrote:
> >More on DEPENDENCIES:
> >
> >The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from
> >the
> >RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See
> >also
> >the linked issues from the Apache pom [2].
> >
> >I think that file's presence may be WAI?
> >
> >[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/pom/tags/maven-
> >parent-27/pom.xml?revision=1704199=markup#l1029
> >[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/isis/isis-
> >core/isis-1.13.0-source-release.zip
> >[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-184
> >
> >On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> >
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Justin.
> >>
> >> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
> >>
> >> Thanks again
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> >>
> >> ⁣​
> >>
> >> On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
> >> >
> >> >> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
> >> >provided, I don't think it's an issue.
> >> >
> >> >In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no
> >nothing
> >> >about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
> >> >find.
> >> >
> >> >This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but
> >not
> >> >to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)
> >> >
> >> >> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only
> >the
> >> >ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis).
> >> >
> >> >If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >> >Justin
> >>
> >>-
> >> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Agree.

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:23, at 08:23, Dan Halperin  
wrote:
>More on DEPENDENCIES:
>
>The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from
>the
>RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See
>also
>the linked issues from the Apache pom [2].
>
>I think that file's presence may be WAI?
>
>[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/pom/tags/maven-
>parent-27/pom.xml?revision=1704199=markup#l1029
>[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/isis/isis-
>core/isis-1.13.0-source-release.zip
>[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-184
>
>On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré
>
>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Justin.
>>
>> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
>>
>> Thanks again
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> ⁣​
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean
>
>> wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
>> >
>> >> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
>> >provided, I don't think it's an issue.
>> >
>> >In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no
>nothing
>> >about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
>> >find.
>> >
>> >This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but
>not
>> >to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)
>> >
>> >> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only
>the
>> >ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis).
>> >
>> >If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Justin
>>
>>-
>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Yes. Good idea. Anyway the dependency should be optional (build in a dedicated 
profile or not).

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:22, at 08:22, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
>For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a
>profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to maven central,
>etc.
>For a normal build.
>
>On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:20 Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
>wrote:
>
>> Thanks Justin.
>>
>> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
>>
>> Thanks again
>> Regards
>> JB
>>
>> ⁣​
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean
>
>> wrote:
>> >Hi,
>> >
>> >Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
>> >
>> >> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
>> >provided, I don't think it's an issue.
>> >
>> >In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no
>nothing
>> >about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
>> >find.
>> >
>> >This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but
>not
>> >to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)
>> >
>> >> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only
>the
>> >ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis).
>> >
>> >If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Justin
>>
>>-
>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Dan Halperin]

More on DEPENDENCIES:

The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from the
RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See also
the linked issues from the Apache pom [2].

I think that file's presence may be WAI?

[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/pom/tags/maven-
parent-27/pom.xml?revision=1704199=markup#l1029
[1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/isis/isis-
core/isis-1.13.0-source-release.zip
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RAT-184

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré 
wrote:

> Thanks Justin.
>
> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
>
> Thanks again
> Regards
> JB
>
> ⁣​
>
> On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
> >
> >> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
> >provided, I don't think it's an issue.
> >
> >In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing
> >about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
> >find.
> >
> >This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but not
> >to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)
> >
> >> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the
> >ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis).
> >
> >If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Aljoscha Krettek]

For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a
profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to maven central, etc.
For a normal build.

On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:20 Jean-Baptiste Onofré  wrote:

> Thanks Justin.
>
> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
>
> Thanks again
> Regards
> JB
>
> ⁣​
>
> On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
> >
> >> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
> >provided, I don't think it's an issue.
> >
> >In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing
> >about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
> >find.
> >
> >This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but not
> >to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)
> >
> >> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the
> >ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis).
> >
> >If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Justin
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

+1 (binding)

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 28, 2016, 10:58, at 10:58, Aljoscha Krettek  wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
>version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
>[ ] +1, Approve the release
>[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
>
>The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>* JIRA release notes [1],
>* the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>[2],
>* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>* source code tag "v0.3.0-incubating-RC1" [4],
>* website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>reference
>manual [5].
>
>The Apache Beam community has unanimously approved this release [6].
>
>As customary, the vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is
>adopted by
>a majority approval with at least three PMC affirmative votes. If
>approved,
>we will proceed with the release.
>
>Thanks!
>
>[1]
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12338051
>[2]
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
>[3]
>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/apache/beam/
>[4]
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=5d86ff7f04862444c266142b0d5acecb5a6b7144
>[5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/52
>[6]
>https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b3736acb5edcea247a5a6a64c09ecacab794461bf1ea628152faeb82@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Thanks Justin.

Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.

Thanks again
Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean  
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
>
>> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
>provided, I don't think it's an issue.
>
>In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing
>about if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could
>find.
>
>This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but not
>to people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)
>
>> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the
>ones who needs pipelines connected with Kinesis). 
>
>If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Changing my vote to +1 (binding).

> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I 
> don't think it's an issue.

In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing about 
if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could find.

This of course may be obvious to people working on the project but not to 
people outside the project - so sorry about that. :-)

> Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the ones who 
> needs pipelines connected with Kinesis). 

If that’s the case then IMO there no issue with the dependancy.

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Ah yes that's it. So it's not a project specific thing IMHO.

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:15, at 08:15, Christopher  wrote:
>I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's
>execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated
>when
>the 'apache-release' profile is active during a release.
>
>On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM Dan Halperin
>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual!
>>
>> 1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release
>[0],
>> but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn
>> release-plugin`, following our release process [2].
>>To clear up some possible confusion: We **definitely** run Apache
>RAT in
>> the release profile [3], which is ran continually on every single
>commit
>> [4], and this has indeed caught unlicensed files. [5] Because
>DEPENDENCIES
>> is not under version control but somehow ended up in the source
>release,
>> RAT does not help here.
>>We'll have to find where in the release process this file was
>> introduced. This same issue happened in the two prior incubating
>releases,
>> but was not noticed :/.
>>Hmm!
>>
>> [0]
>>
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
>> [1]
>>
>>
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/DEPENDENCIES
>> (HTTP 404 expected)
>> [2] http://beam.incubator.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/
>> [3]
>>
>>
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/pom.xml#L197
>> [4] Example:
>>
>>
>https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_MavenVerify/4362/org.apache.beam$beam-parent/console
>>
>> [5]
>>
>>
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/1199/commits/0addd4c7138211cdfb9056101c8e13325ad3de58
>>
>> 2) I'm not sure precisely what the definition of `optional` is; I'd
>like
>> some clarification. We do indeed build the module by default, but it
>is not
>> in any way required to use Beam. For example:
>>Beam's examples [6] module does not depend on Kinesis. This is a
>key
>> user starting point -- the examples provide many useful, flagship
>> end-to-end Beam pipelines. The same goes for our Maven archetypes for
>the
>> examples [7] and starter projects [8]. In fact, no module depends on
>the
>> module that provides Kinesis, explicitly so that it is completely
>unused
>> unless a user opts into it.
>>
>> [6]
>>
>>
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/examples/pom.xml
>> [7]
>>
>>
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
>> [8]
>>
>>
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dan
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Justin Mclean
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > > We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
>> >
>> > Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the
>main
>> > point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you
>can’t
>> > have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional.
>> >
>> > > The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar
>file.
>> The
>> > users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use
>the
>> > Kinesis IO.
>> >
>> > Which may not be enough IMO. The question to ask is “Will most
>users want
>> > to use Kinesis IO or not?"
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Justin
>> >
>-
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Dan

Yeah good catch. Default configuration of the release plugin doesn't create 
such file afair. So we probably have a configuration or other plugins defined 
in the project.

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 08:07, at 08:07, Dan Halperin  
wrote:
>Hi Justin,
>
>Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual!
>
>1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release
>[0],
>but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn
>release-plugin`, following our release process [2].
>To clear up some possible confusion: We **definitely** run Apache RAT
>in
>the release profile [3], which is ran continually on every single
>commit
>[4], and this has indeed caught unlicensed files. [5] Because
>DEPENDENCIES
>is not under version control but somehow ended up in the source
>release,
>RAT does not help here.
>   We'll have to find where in the release process this file was
>introduced. This same issue happened in the two prior incubating
>releases,
>but was not noticed :/.
>   Hmm!
>
>[0]
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
>[1]
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/DEPENDENCIES
>(HTTP 404 expected)
>[2] http://beam.incubator.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/
>[3]
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/pom.xml#L197
>[4] Example:
>https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_MavenVerify/4362/org.apache.beam$beam-parent/console
>
>[5]
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/1199/commits/0addd4c7138211cdfb9056101c8e13325ad3de58
>
>2) I'm not sure precisely what the definition of `optional` is; I'd
>like
>some clarification. We do indeed build the module by default, but it is
>not
>in any way required to use Beam. For example:
>   Beam's examples [6] module does not depend on Kinesis. This is a key
>user starting point -- the examples provide many useful, flagship
>end-to-end Beam pipelines. The same goes for our Maven archetypes for
>the
>examples [7] and starter projects [8]. In fact, no module depends on
>the
>module that provides Kinesis, explicitly so that it is completely
>unused
>unless a user opts into it.
>
>[6]
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/examples/pom.xml
>[7]
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
>[8]
>https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
>
>Thanks,
>Dan
>
>On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Justin Mclean
>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
>>
>> Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main
>> point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you
>can’t
>> have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional.
>>
>> > The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar
>file. The
>> users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the
>> Kinesis IO.
>>
>> Which may not be enough IMO. The question to ask is “Will most users
>want
>> to use Kinesis IO or not?"
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Christopher]

I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's
execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated when
the 'apache-release' profile is active during a release.

On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM Dan Halperin 
wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual!
>
> 1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release [0],
> but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn
> release-plugin`, following our release process [2].
>To clear up some possible confusion: We **definitely** run Apache RAT in
> the release profile [3], which is ran continually on every single commit
> [4], and this has indeed caught unlicensed files. [5] Because DEPENDENCIES
> is not under version control but somehow ended up in the source release,
> RAT does not help here.
>We'll have to find where in the release process this file was
> introduced. This same issue happened in the two prior incubating releases,
> but was not noticed :/.
>Hmm!
>
> [0]
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
> [1]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/DEPENDENCIES
> (HTTP 404 expected)
> [2] http://beam.incubator.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/
> [3]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/pom.xml#L197
> [4] Example:
>
> https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_MavenVerify/4362/org.apache.beam$beam-parent/console
>
> [5]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/1199/commits/0addd4c7138211cdfb9056101c8e13325ad3de58
>
> 2) I'm not sure precisely what the definition of `optional` is; I'd like
> some clarification. We do indeed build the module by default, but it is not
> in any way required to use Beam. For example:
>Beam's examples [6] module does not depend on Kinesis. This is a key
> user starting point -- the examples provide many useful, flagship
> end-to-end Beam pipelines. The same goes for our Maven archetypes for the
> examples [7] and starter projects [8]. In fact, no module depends on the
> module that provides Kinesis, explicitly so that it is completely unused
> unless a user opts into it.
>
> [6]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/examples/pom.xml
> [7]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
> [8]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
> >
> > Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main
> > point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t
> > have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional.
> >
> > > The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file.
> The
> > users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the
> > Kinesis IO.
> >
> > Which may not be enough IMO. The question to ask is “Will most users want
> > to use Kinesis IO or not?"
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Dan Halperin]

Hi Justin,

Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual!

1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release [0],
but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn
release-plugin`, following our release process [2].
   To clear up some possible confusion: We **definitely** run Apache RAT in
the release profile [3], which is ran continually on every single commit
[4], and this has indeed caught unlicensed files. [5] Because DEPENDENCIES
is not under version control but somehow ended up in the source release,
RAT does not help here.
   We'll have to find where in the release process this file was
introduced. This same issue happened in the two prior incubating releases,
but was not noticed :/.
   Hmm!

[0] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
[1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/DEPENDENCIES
(HTTP 404 expected)
[2] http://beam.incubator.apache.org/contribute/release-guide/
[3]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/pom.xml#L197
[4] Example:
https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_MavenVerify/4362/org.apache.beam$beam-parent/console

[5]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/1199/commits/0addd4c7138211cdfb9056101c8e13325ad3de58

2) I'm not sure precisely what the definition of `optional` is; I'd like
some clarification. We do indeed build the module by default, but it is not
in any way required to use Beam. For example:
   Beam's examples [6] module does not depend on Kinesis. This is a key
user starting point -- the examples provide many useful, flagship
end-to-end Beam pipelines. The same goes for our Maven archetypes for the
examples [7] and starter projects [8]. In fact, no module depends on the
module that provides Kinesis, explicitly so that it is completely unused
unless a user opts into it.

[6]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/examples/pom.xml
[7]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/examples/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml
[8]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/blob/release-0.3.0-incubating/sdks/java/maven-archetypes/starter/src/main/resources/archetype-resources/pom.xml

Thanks,
Dan

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:37 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
>
> Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main
> point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t
> have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional.
>
> > The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file. The
> users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the
> Kinesis IO.
>
> Which may not be enough IMO. The question to ask is “Will most users want
> to use Kinesis IO or not?"
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I 
don't think it's an issue.

If it's not the case (I gonna check) and the resulting jar embeds the 
dependency it's an issue.

Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the ones who 
needs pipelines connected with Kinesis). So they can add the Kinesis client by 
hand.

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 07:37, at 07:37, Justin Mclean  
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
>
>Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main
>point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you
>can’t have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional.
>
>> The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file.
>The users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use
>the Kinesis IO.
>
>Which may not be enough IMO. The question to ask is “Will most users
>want to use Kinesis IO or not?"
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.

Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main point. Yes 
you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t have it as a 
dependancy either unless it’s optional.

> The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file. The 
> users have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the Kinesis 
> IO.

Which may not be enough IMO. The question to ask is “Will most users want to 
use Kinesis IO or not?"

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi John

Rat is supposed to run with the release profile. We are going to check that and 
why DEPENDENCIES file has not been checked.

Regarding Kinesis, the dependency should not be embedded in any Beam jar or 
distribution. The user has to explicitly define the dependency to be able to 
use the IO. So it should not be an issue. Let me check if the scope is actually 
provided there.

Thanks
Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 02:05, at 02:05, "John D. Ament"  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>mvn apache-rat:check fails on your release due to the DEPENDENCIES file
>not
>having a header.  If you don't need this file, please remove it.  I
>would
>also recommend leaving apache-rat running all the time to avoid newly
>introduced issues.
>
>In addition, I notice that your build output includes dependencies on
>aws-kinesis-client, which is Amazon Software Licensed.  Have you
>received
>clarification on whether you can include or not?
>
>John
>
>
>
>On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:49 AM Aljoscha Krettek 
>wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache
>Beam
>> version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>
>>
>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which
>includes:
>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>dist.apache.org
>> [2],
>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>> * source code tag "v0.3.0-incubating-RC1" [4],
>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API
>reference
>> manual [5].
>>
>> The Apache Beam community has unanimously approved this release [6].
>>
>> As customary, the vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is
>adopted by
>> a majority approval with at least three PMC affirmative votes. If
>approved,
>> we will proceed with the release.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> [1]
>>
>>
>https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12338051
>> [2]
>>
>https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
>> [3]
>>
>https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/apache/beam/
>> [4]
>>
>>
>https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=5d86ff7f04862444c266142b0d5acecb5a6b7144
>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/52
>> [6]
>>
>>
>https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b3736acb5edcea247a5a6a64c09ecacab794461bf1ea628152faeb82@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Jean-Baptiste Onofré]

Hi Justin

We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file. The users 
have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the Kinesis IO.

So I don't see any issue in that case. Agree ?

Regards
JB

⁣​

On Oct 29, 2016, 02:51, at 02:51, Justin Mclean  
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>-1 binding due to incompatible license dependancy. Happy to change my
>vote if this is shown to not be the case.
>
>Everything checks out expect the dependancy of Amazon licensed software
>which is category X [1] this (closed) JIRA covers it [2]
>
>Note that it not enough just to not included the software as discussed
>in the dev list release thread. Apache software can’t depend on
>Category X software unless it is optional. [3][4]
>
>I checked:
>- name includes incubating
>- signatures and hashes good
>- DISCLAIMER exists
>- All source file have ASF headers
>- No binary files in source release
>- Can compile from source
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>
>1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
>2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-198
>3. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
>4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

-1 binding due to incompatible license dependancy. Happy to change my vote if 
this is shown to not be the case.

Everything checks out expect the dependancy of Amazon licensed software which 
is category X [1] this (closed) JIRA covers it [2]

Note that it not enough just to not included the software as discussed in the 
dev list release thread. Apache software can’t depend on Category X software 
unless it is optional. [3][4]

I checked:
- name includes incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- All source file have ASF headers
- No binary files in source release
- Can compile from source

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#category-x
2. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-198
3. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#prohibited
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[John D. Ament]

Hi,

mvn apache-rat:check fails on your release due to the DEPENDENCIES file not
having a header.  If you don't need this file, please remove it.  I would
also recommend leaving apache-rat running all the time to avoid newly
introduced issues.

In addition, I notice that your build output includes dependencies on
aws-kinesis-client, which is Amazon Software Licensed.  Have you received
clarification on whether you can include or not?

John



On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 4:49 AM Aljoscha Krettek 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
> version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> * source code tag "v0.3.0-incubating-RC1" [4],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
> manual [5].
>
> The Apache Beam community has unanimously approved this release [6].
>
> As customary, the vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> a majority approval with at least three PMC affirmative votes. If approved,
> we will proceed with the release.
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1]
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12338051
> [2]
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
> [3]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/apache/beam/
> [4]
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=5d86ff7f04862444c266142b0d5acecb5a6b7144
> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/52
> [6]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b3736acb5edcea247a5a6a64c09ecacab794461bf1ea628152faeb82@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Seetharam Venkatesh]

+1 (binding), carrying over from dev vote

Sent from my iPhone,
Venkatesh

> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:22 AM, Sergio Fernández  wrote:
> 
> (repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs )
> 
> +1 (binding)
> 
> So far I've successfully checked:
> * signatures and digests
> * source releases file layouts
> * matched git tags and commit ids
> * incubator suffix and disclaimer
> * NOTICE and LICENSE files
> * license headers
> * clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Scala, 2.11.7, SBT 0.13.9, Debian amd64)
> 
> 
> Couple of minor issues I've seen it'd be great to have fixed in upcoming
> releases:
> * MongoDbIOTest fails (addr already in use) when a Mongo service is locally
> running. I'd say the port should be random in the test suite. Reported
> as BEAM-856.
> * How did you generated the checksums? Because both SHA1/MD5 can't be
> automatically checked because "no properly formatted SHA1/MD5 checksum
> lines found". Reported as BEAM-841.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
>> version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
>> [ ] +1, Approve the release
>> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>> 
>> 
>> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
>> * JIRA release notes [1],
>> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
>> [2],
>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
>> * source code tag "v0.3.0-incubating-RC1" [4],
>> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
>> manual [5].
>> 
>> The Apache Beam community has unanimously approved this release [6].
>> 
>> As customary, the vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
>> a majority approval with at least three PMC affirmative votes. If approved,
>> we will proceed with the release.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> [1]
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
>> projectId=12319527=12338051
>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-
>> incubating/
>> [3]
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
>> org/apache/beam/
>> [4]
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=
>> 5d86ff7f04862444c266142b0d5acecb5a6b7144
>> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/52
>> [6]
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b3736acb5edcea247a5a6a64c09eca
>> cab794461bf1ea628152faeb82@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sergio Fernández
> Partner Technology Manager
> Redlink GmbH
> m: +43 6602747925
> e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co
> w: http://redlink.co

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

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Sergio Fernández]

(repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs )

+1 (binding)

So far I've successfully checked:
* signatures and digests
* source releases file layouts
* matched git tags and commit ids
* incubator suffix and disclaimer
* NOTICE and LICENSE files
* license headers
* clean build (Java 1.8.0_91, Scala, 2.11.7, SBT 0.13.9, Debian amd64)


Couple of minor issues I've seen it'd be great to have fixed in upcoming
releases:
* MongoDbIOTest fails (addr already in use) when a Mongo service is locally
running. I'd say the port should be random in the test suite. Reported
as BEAM-856.
* How did you generated the checksums? Because both SHA1/MD5 can't be
automatically checked because "no properly formatted SHA1/MD5 checksum
lines found". Reported as BEAM-841.

Cheers,



On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Aljoscha Krettek 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
> version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
>
> The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
> * JIRA release notes [1],
> * the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org
> [2],
> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
> * source code tag "v0.3.0-incubating-RC1" [4],
> * website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
> manual [5].
>
> The Apache Beam community has unanimously approved this release [6].
>
> As customary, the vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
> a majority approval with at least three PMC affirmative votes. If approved,
> we will proceed with the release.
>
> Thanks!
>
> [1]
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=12319527=12338051
> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-
> incubating/
> [3]
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
> org/apache/beam/
> [4]
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=
> 5d86ff7f04862444c266142b0d5acecb5a6b7144
> [5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/52
> [6]
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b3736acb5edcea247a5a6a64c09eca
> cab794461bf1ea628152faeb82@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
>



-- 
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 6602747925
e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co

[VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

[Aljoscha Krettek]

Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)


The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIRA release notes [1],
* the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org [2],
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [3],
* source code tag "v0.3.0-incubating-RC1" [4],
* website pull request listing the release and publishing the API reference
manual [5].

The Apache Beam community has unanimously approved this release [6].

As customary, the vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by
a majority approval with at least three PMC affirmative votes. If approved,
we will proceed with the release.

Thanks!

[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527=12338051
[2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/beam/0.3.0-incubating/
[3]
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/org/apache/beam/
[4]
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-beam.git;a=tag;h=5d86ff7f04862444c266142b0d5acecb5a6b7144
[5] https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam-site/pull/52
[6]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b3736acb5edcea247a5a6a64c09ecacab794461bf1ea628152faeb82@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E