Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Sebastian]

+1 (binding)

On 30.08.2017 07:37, Henri Yandell wrote:

+1 (binding) to the release.

Minor items (fix next release):

* R-package/ directory is empty (needs removing as confusing, or a README
could be added explaining the code is not present and can be found outside
of Apache).
* Agreed with Justin that there needs to be a Getting Started text file of
some kind. This could be a link from the README.md to the docs/get_started
directory perhaps; though .md format isn't the easiest to read (ie: link to
website and over time we should consider whether a local version is needed).
* CONTRIBUTORS.md calls the project DMLC/MXNet.
* The NEWS.md refers to 0.11.0-rc3 as the latest version. This should refer
to the version being released rather than the rc3.
* The README.md also refers to rc3. It shouldn't refer to rc3 as a release,
and ideally it would refer to 0.11.0 as a release (though tricky to be
forward looking given that GitHub treats that as a homepage). Randomly
noting that the What's New should be dated.
* The README.md refers to the copyright being owned by Contributors. Needs
updating to a license statement (with NOTICE handling the copyright side of
things).

There's a lot of continual cleanup to do here; but given that this is a
project that has previously been released (pre-apache), and many of these
items are an issue in the old version (ie: existing users have already
dealt with things like no direct link from download to how to get
started/build etc), I don't see anything blocking.

Hen


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal 
wrote:


Hi all

This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
candidate 3.

Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>


Result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>


The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>


The release tag can be found here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>


The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be
found here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd 


Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549


KEY files are available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>


For information about the contents of this release, see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>


The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Thanks.





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

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Craig Russell]

It looks like the request to vote on the release by the Incubator PMC was made 
on Friday August 25.

This vote has been open more than 72 hours after the [VOTE] thread was opened. 

So it looks like you are good to release.

Regards,

Craig

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Dominic Divakaruni 
>  wrote:
> 
> + dev@
> This is great feedback. Thanks to the PMC for reviewing. Megna is on point
> to track all this feedback, capture action items on the wiki and Jira..
> 
> Overall it looks like we have 3 binding +1's.
> 
> Are we good to proceed with making the release official?
> 
> Best,
> Dom
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> 
>> +1 (binding) to the release.
>> 
>> Minor items (fix next release):
>> 
>> * R-package/ directory is empty (needs removing as confusing, or a README
>> could be added explaining the code is not present and can be found outside
>> of Apache).
>> * Agreed with Justin that there needs to be a Getting Started text file of
>> some kind. This could be a link from the README.md to the docs/get_started
>> directory perhaps; though .md format isn't the easiest to read (ie: link to
>> website and over time we should consider whether a local version is
>> needed).
>> * CONTRIBUTORS.md calls the project DMLC/MXNet.
>> * The NEWS.md refers to 0.11.0-rc3 as the latest version. This should refer
>> to the version being released rather than the rc3.
>> * The README.md also refers to rc3. It shouldn't refer to rc3 as a release,
>> and ideally it would refer to 0.11.0 as a release (though tricky to be
>> forward looking given that GitHub treats that as a homepage). Randomly
>> noting that the What's New should be dated.
>> * The README.md refers to the copyright being owned by Contributors. Needs
>> updating to a license statement (with NOTICE handling the copyright side of
>> things).
>> 
>> There's a lot of continual cleanup to do here; but given that this is a
>> project that has previously been released (pre-apache), and many of these
>> items are an issue in the old version (ie: existing users have already
>> dealt with things like no direct link from download to how to get
>> started/build etc), I don't see anything blocking.
>> 
>> Hen
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal >> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
>>> candidate 3.
>>> 
>>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>>> 
>>> Vote thread:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
>>> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
>>> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Result thread:
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
>>> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
>>> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The release tag can be found here:
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be
>>> found here:
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
>>> ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd >> incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>>> AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
>>> 
>>> 
>>> KEY files are available here:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For information about the contents of this release, see:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
>>> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
>>> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>> 
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dominic Divakaruni
> 206.475.9200 Cell

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 MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Dominic Divakaruni]

+ dev@
This is great feedback. Thanks to the PMC for reviewing. Megna is on point
to track all this feedback, capture action items on the wiki and Jira..

Overall it looks like we have 3 binding +1's.

Are we good to proceed with making the release official?

Best,
Dom

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Henri Yandell  wrote:

> +1 (binding) to the release.
>
> Minor items (fix next release):
>
> * R-package/ directory is empty (needs removing as confusing, or a README
> could be added explaining the code is not present and can be found outside
> of Apache).
> * Agreed with Justin that there needs to be a Getting Started text file of
> some kind. This could be a link from the README.md to the docs/get_started
> directory perhaps; though .md format isn't the easiest to read (ie: link to
> website and over time we should consider whether a local version is
> needed).
> * CONTRIBUTORS.md calls the project DMLC/MXNet.
> * The NEWS.md refers to 0.11.0-rc3 as the latest version. This should refer
> to the version being released rather than the rc3.
> * The README.md also refers to rc3. It shouldn't refer to rc3 as a release,
> and ideally it would refer to 0.11.0 as a release (though tricky to be
> forward looking given that GitHub treats that as a homepage). Randomly
> noting that the What's New should be dated.
> * The README.md refers to the copyright being owned by Contributors. Needs
> updating to a license statement (with NOTICE handling the copyright side of
> things).
>
> There's a lot of continual cleanup to do here; but given that this is a
> project that has previously been released (pre-apache), and many of these
> items are an issue in the old version (ie: existing users have already
> dealt with things like no direct link from download to how to get
> started/build etc), I don't see anything blocking.
>
> Hen
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
> > candidate 3.
> >
> > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >
> >
> > Result thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >
> >
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> >
> >
> > The release tag can be found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> >
> >
> > The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be
> > found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> > ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd  > incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
> >
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> >
> >
> > KEY files are available here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> >
> >
> > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
> >
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>



-- 


Dominic Divakaruni
206.475.9200 Cell

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Henri Yandell]

+1 (binding) to the release.

Minor items (fix next release):

* R-package/ directory is empty (needs removing as confusing, or a README
could be added explaining the code is not present and can be found outside
of Apache).
* Agreed with Justin that there needs to be a Getting Started text file of
some kind. This could be a link from the README.md to the docs/get_started
directory perhaps; though .md format isn't the easiest to read (ie: link to
website and over time we should consider whether a local version is needed).
* CONTRIBUTORS.md calls the project DMLC/MXNet.
* The NEWS.md refers to 0.11.0-rc3 as the latest version. This should refer
to the version being released rather than the rc3.
* The README.md also refers to rc3. It shouldn't refer to rc3 as a release,
and ideally it would refer to 0.11.0 as a release (though tricky to be
forward looking given that GitHub treats that as a homepage). Randomly
noting that the What's New should be dated.
* The README.md refers to the copyright being owned by Contributors. Needs
updating to a license statement (with NOTICE handling the copyright side of
things).

There's a lot of continual cleanup to do here; but given that this is a
project that has previously been released (pre-apache), and many of these
items are an issue in the old version (ie: existing users have already
dealt with things like no direct link from download to how to get
started/build etc), I don't see anything blocking.

Hen


On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal 
wrote:

> Hi all
>
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
> candidate 3.
>
> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>
> Vote thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>
>
> Result thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>
>
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
>
>
> The release tag can be found here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
>
>
> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be
> found here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd  incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
>
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
>
>
> KEY files are available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
>
>
> For information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
>
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Thanks.
>

Re: Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]

[Henri Yandell]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:37 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Just to be clear.  The issue in this case (not to confuse this
> situation
> > > with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.
> >
> > With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of
> > Apache, BSD and MIT licenses it’s fairly similar IMO.
> >
>
> I'm looking at it a second time now.  I just realized that half of their
> source release is actually coming from repos not hosted at the ASF.  Hen,
> do you know if they have plans to move the rest over?
>
> https://github.com/dmlc/dmlc-core/tree/a527100d7d5001efc4954848a2fc60
> 27e48c05f4/include/dmlc
>
> The files in that directory carry no license headers on them, are hosted in
> an external repo.  But there is an Apache license at the root.
>

An excellent question. I think this came up in discussions on migrating
source; but I don't recall there being any decisions on list. It seems that
either a) It's a second repository that needs to be created for
apache-mxnet or b) it's an external dependency. There are 6 dependency
repositories being pulled from dmlc.

I'll raise this on dev@.

Hen

Re: Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:10 PM Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Just to be clear.  The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation
> > with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.
>
> With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of
> Apache, BSD and MIT licenses it’s fairly similar IMO.
>

I'm looking at it a second time now.  I just realized that half of their
source release is actually coming from repos not hosted at the ASF.  Hen,
do you know if they have plans to move the rest over?

https://github.com/dmlc/dmlc-core/tree/a527100d7d5001efc4954848a2fc6027e48c05f4/include/dmlc

The files in that directory carry no license headers on them, are hosted in
an external repo.  But there is an Apache license at the root.


>
> The 3rd party Apache licensed file should ideally have the header as
> specified in the appendix of the Apache license. [1[
>
>
Agreed.

Whats curious is they use the short form in their license file, but they
used to have the long form
https://github.com/dmlc/dmlc-core/commit/d0e7fab67dc74b665fdc9840a2b0a299bc4f1763


> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply

Re: Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> Just to be clear.  The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation
> with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.

With a large number of files not having license headers and a mix of Apache, 
BSD and MIT licenses it’s fairly similar IMO.

The 3rd party Apache licensed file should ideally have the header as specified 
in the appendix of the Apache license. [1[

Thanks,
Justin

1. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#apply

Re: Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 10:15 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we
> > > can't remove the copyright claim that already exists.  Us receiving an
> > ICLA
> > > is what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA).
> > >
> > > It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be
> > careful
> > > we're removing someone's pre-existing claim.
> > >
> >
> > I'll give a more concrete example.
> >
> > Let's say I imported this file into an ASF repo
> > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/
> > blob/v5.0.0.RC3/spring-core/src/main/java/org/springframework/util/
> > StringUtils.java
> >
> > I wouldn't change the header to say licensed to the ASF.  None of the
> > contributors have signed ICLAs.  The file header would remain in tact.  I
> > would also have to carry their notice file around
> > https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/
> > blob/v5.0.0.RC3/src/docs/dist/notice.txt
> > (at
> > least I'm assuming this is their NOTICE file, I can't find any others
> > around)
> >
> >
> For a concrete example with copyright Pivotal; sure - nice and easy.
>
> In this case we have 'Copyright Contributors'. It's an empty phrase that
> would just cause confusion. Because Contributor isn't defined, it looks
> like a repeat of our source header:
>
> "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
> contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this
> work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. ... "
>
> Perhaps the solution is to, in the NOTICE, state:
>
> Copyright 2015-2016 by Contributors
> Copyright 2017 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> Where we could change 'by Contributors' to be more descriptive, but I seem
> to recall lots of pushback at changing 3rd party source headers to make
> them more understandable.
>

I think that's a reasonable approach, to list out contributors in question.


>
> ---
>
> Note also that clause 5 of Apache 2.0 means that many of those 'contributor
> license agreements' are Apache 2.0 Licenses and not SGA/ICLA/CCLA. Its
> language should also cover something else published under Apache 2.0; ie)
> no need for a different Apache source header.
>
>
Just to be clear.  The issue in this case (not to confuse this situation
with MADlib's) isn't what license applies but what copyrights apply.  MXnet
is actually much easier, since we imported full commit history.  We can
always go back and check who committer what change and what copyright
applies.  The legal ruling [1] is that we don't add the Apache source
header to 3rd party code, which is effectively what this is.  I'll also
point out that the legal advice is clear that this is only for code
developed at the ASF, which the existing MXnet code is not.

[1]: https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html


> Hen
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Sorry the send button got pressed a bit too quickly there.

+1 (binding) but there a few outstanding things that need to be fixed IMO 
before the next release.

I checked:
- incubating in name
- signature and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- NOTICE may have wrong year range (should only be 2017?)
- LICENSE has some minor issues and missing a few permissive licenses
- There’s a number of issue with headers on files with a large number of files 
missing the standard ASF header or an Apache license header. Please fix for 
next release.
- Didn’t try to compile as there’s doesn’t seem to be any instruction on how to 
do so. Would be nice if this was provided in the README.

License is missing
- BSD license for this file [4]
- MIT licensed JQuery and Sizzle.js [5]
- This BSD licensed file [6]
- Boost Software licensed file [7]
- This BSD licensed files [8][9]

Some minor issues:
- While a number of file (around 50 odd) do have "Copyright (c) 2016 by 
Contributors” they don’t have a full Apache licensed header please fix this in 
the next release. More files exist with other years and without the correct 
header.
- This license file may be a little misleading [1] where its apache license but 
also claims “All rights reserved”. I notice this in a number of other places as 
well.
- A number of Apache licenses have incorrect appendixes with the copyright line 
filled in e.g. [2]
- This file may incorrect have an ASF header on it [3]

Also the README has a large number of links to http://mxnet.io I assume this 
will be changed during incubation?

Thanks,
Justin

1. ./src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/LICENSE
2../dlpack/LICENSE
3. ./example/image-classification/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
4. ./docs/_static/searchtools_custom.js
5. ./docs/_static/jquery-1.11.1.js
6.  ./cub/test/mersenne.h
7. ./cmake/Modules/FindJeMalloc.cmake
8. ./dmlc-core/cmake/Modules/FindCrypto.cmake
9. ./nnvm/dmlc-core/cmake/Modules/FindCrypto.cmake




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

Source Headers [Was: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3]

[Henri Yandell]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 6:38 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:
> >
> >> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
> >>
> >>
> > Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we
> > can't remove the copyright claim that already exists.  Us receiving an
> ICLA
> > is what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA).
> >
> > It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be
> careful
> > we're removing someone's pre-existing claim.
> >
>
> I'll give a more concrete example.
>
> Let's say I imported this file into an ASF repo
> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/
> blob/v5.0.0.RC3/spring-core/src/main/java/org/springframework/util/
> StringUtils.java
>
> I wouldn't change the header to say licensed to the ASF.  None of the
> contributors have signed ICLAs.  The file header would remain in tact.  I
> would also have to carry their notice file around
> https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/
> blob/v5.0.0.RC3/src/docs/dist/notice.txt
> (at
> least I'm assuming this is their NOTICE file, I can't find any others
> around)
>
>
For a concrete example with copyright Pivotal; sure - nice and easy.

In this case we have 'Copyright Contributors'. It's an empty phrase that
would just cause confusion. Because Contributor isn't defined, it looks
like a repeat of our source header:

"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with this
work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. ... "

Perhaps the solution is to, in the NOTICE, state:

Copyright 2015-2016 by Contributors
Copyright 2017 The Apache Software Foundation

Where we could change 'by Contributors' to be more descriptive, but I seem
to recall lots of pushback at changing 3rd party source headers to make
them more understandable.

---

Note also that clause 5 of Apache 2.0 means that many of those 'contributor
license agreements' are Apache 2.0 Licenses and not SGA/ICLA/CCLA. Its
language should also cover something else published under Apache 2.0; ie)
no need for a different Apache source header.

Hen

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Justin Mclean]

HI,

I checked:
- incubating in name
- signature and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- NOTICE may have wrong year range (should


While a number of file (around 50 odd) do have "Copyright (c) 2016 by 
Contributors” they don’t have a full Apache licensed header please fix this in 
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 MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:30 PM John D. Ament  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:
>
>> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
>>
>>
> Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we
> can't remove the copyright claim that already exists.  Us receiving an ICLA
> is what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA).
>
> It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be careful
> we're removing someone's pre-existing claim.
>

I'll give a more concrete example.

Let's say I imported this file into an ASF repo
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/blob/v5.0.0.RC3/spring-core/src/main/java/org/springframework/util/StringUtils.java

I wouldn't change the header to say licensed to the ASF.  None of the
contributors have signed ICLAs.  The file header would remain in tact.  I
would also have to carry their notice file around
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-framework/blob/v5.0.0.RC3/src/docs/dist/notice.txt
(at
least I'm assuming this is their NOTICE file, I can't find any others
around)

John



>
>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 18:15 John D. Ament 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
>> >
>> > - The NOTICE file is wrong.  Unless the dependencies listed have
>> explicit
>> > notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to
>> the
>> > NOTICE file.
>> > - The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
>> > contributors to that file have signed ICLAs, otherwise we need some
>> kind of
>> > agreement they are OK with moving to NOTICE file (which is how this has
>> > been handled in the past).
>> >
>> > Please create JIRAs to track these.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM Henri Yandell 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that
>> all
>> > > contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing
>> project.
>> > >
>> > > We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for
>> the
>> > > largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible
>> > wording
>> > > there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most
>> > are
>> > > covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause
>> 5
>> > of
>> > > Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.
>> > >
>> > > To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
>> > > "Copyright  by Contributors".
>> > >
>> > > Hen
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell 
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi Henri,
>> > > >
>> > > > If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who
>> contributed
>> > > to
>> > > > the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as
>> > part
>> > > of
>> > > > IP Clearance.
>> > > >
>> > > > It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
>> > > >
>> > > > Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the
>> > incubator
>> > > > who are not now committers?
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > Craig
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling
>> > release.
>> > > > Will
>> > > > > review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?).
>> Code
>> > > has
>> > > > > been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament <
>> johndam...@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> Dominic,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always
>> Apache
>> > > > Licensed
>> > > > >> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> John
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
>> > > > >> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so
>> far.
>> > > > >>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review
>> and
>> > > vote?
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this
>> > > project?
>> > > > >>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> Dom
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>>
>> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament <
>> > > johndam...@apache.org>
>> > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > >>>
>> > > >  Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
>> > > > releases.
>> > > >  Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to
>> there
>> > > being
>> > > > >> no
>> > > >  SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check
>> > > ICLAs
>> > > > >> and
>> > 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[John D. Ament]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:27 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:

> Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?
>
>
Yes, for any file that we don't have full agreement (ICLA on file) we can't
remove the copyright claim that already exists.  Us receiving an ICLA is
what allows us to say "Licensed to the ASF" (it's in the ICLA).

It's not a big deal, since its Apache licensed, we just have to be careful
we're removing someone's pre-existing claim.


> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 18:15 John D. Ament  wrote:
>
> > Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
> >
> > - The NOTICE file is wrong.  Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
> > notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to the
> > NOTICE file.
> > - The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
> > contributors to that file have signed ICLAs, otherwise we need some kind
> of
> > agreement they are OK with moving to NOTICE file (which is how this has
> > been handled in the past).
> >
> > Please create JIRAs to track these.
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:
> >
> > > I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that
> all
> > > contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing
> project.
> > >
> > > We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for
> the
> > > largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible
> > wording
> > > there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most
> > are
> > > covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause 5
> > of
> > > Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.
> > >
> > > To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
> > > "Copyright  by Contributors".
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Henri,
> > > >
> > > > If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who
> contributed
> > > to
> > > > the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as
> > part
> > > of
> > > > IP Clearance.
> > > >
> > > > It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
> > > >
> > > > Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the
> > incubator
> > > > who are not now committers?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > > > On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell 
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling
> > release.
> > > > Will
> > > > > review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
> > > > >
> > > > > There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?).
> Code
> > > has
> > > > > been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament  >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dominic,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
> > > > Licensed
> > > > >> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> John
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> > > > >> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so
> far.
> > > > >>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and
> > > vote?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this
> > > project?
> > > > >>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Dom
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > >  Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
> > > > releases.
> > > >  Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there
> > > being
> > > > >> no
> > > >  SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check
> > > ICLAs
> > > > >> and
> > > >  files that have changed license.
> > > > 
> > > >  On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
> > > >  dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
> > > >  committers
> > > > > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in
> > on
> > > > >> this
> > > > > release?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> > > >  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > > > >>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi All,
> > > > >> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> > > > >> 0.11.0
> > > >  is
> > > > >> still open.
> > > > >> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> > > > >>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Henri Yandell]

Reverted to "Copyright Contributors"?

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 18:15 John D. Ament  wrote:

> Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
>
> - The NOTICE file is wrong.  Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
> notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to the
> NOTICE file.
> - The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
> contributors to that file have signed ICLAs, otherwise we need some kind of
> agreement they are OK with moving to NOTICE file (which is how this has
> been handled in the past).
>
> Please create JIRAs to track these.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:
>
> > I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that all
> > contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing project.
> >
> > We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for the
> > largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible
> wording
> > there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most
> are
> > covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause 5
> of
> > Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.
> >
> > To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
> > "Copyright  by Contributors".
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Henri,
> > >
> > > If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed
> > to
> > > the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as
> part
> > of
> > > IP Clearance.
> > >
> > > It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
> > >
> > > Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the
> incubator
> > > who are not now committers?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > > > On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling
> release.
> > > Will
> > > > review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
> > > >
> > > > There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code
> > has
> > > > been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Dominic,
> > > >>
> > > >> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
> > > Licensed
> > > >> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
> > > >>
> > > >> John
> > > >>
> > > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> > > >> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
> > > >>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and
> > vote?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this
> > project?
> > > >>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Dom
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> > johndam...@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > >  Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
> > > releases.
> > >  Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there
> > being
> > > >> no
> > >  SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check
> > ICLAs
> > > >> and
> > >  files that have changed license.
> > > 
> > >  On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
> > >  dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
> > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
> > >  committers
> > > > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in
> on
> > > >> this
> > > > release?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> > >  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > > >>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi All,
> > > >> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> > > >> 0.11.0
> > >  is
> > > >> still open.
> > > >> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> > > >>
> > > >> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Meghna
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> > >  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > > >>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi all
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating)
> 0.11.0,
> > > > release
> > > >>> candidate 3.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Vote thread:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Thanks John. I will create the JIRA tickets to track your inputs as requested. 

Meghna
 
> On Aug 29, 2017, at 6:14 PM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
> 
> - The NOTICE file is wrong.  Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
> notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to the
> NOTICE file.
> - The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
> contributors to that file have signed ICLAs, otherwise we need some kind of
> agreement they are OK with moving to NOTICE file (which is how this has
> been handled in the past).
> 
> Please create JIRAs to track these.
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM Henri Yandell  > wrote:
> 
>> I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that all
>> contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing project.
>> 
>> We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for the
>> largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible wording
>> there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most are
>> covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause 5 of
>> Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.
>> 
>> To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
>> "Copyright  by Contributors".
>> 
>> Hen
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Henri,
>>> 
>>> If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed
>> to
>>> the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part
>> of
>>> IP Clearance.
>>> 
>>> It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
>>> 
>>> Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the incubator
>>> who are not now committers?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
 On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
 
 Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release.
>>> Will
 review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
 
 There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code
>> has
 been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
 
 On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament 
>>> wrote:
 
> Dominic,
> 
> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
>>> Licensed
> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and
>> vote?
>> 
>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this
>> project?
>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
>> 
>> Dom
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament <
>> johndam...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
>>> releases.
>>> Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there
>> being
> no
>>> SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check
>> ICLAs
> and
>>> files that have changed license.
>>> 
>>> On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
>>> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
>>> committers
 for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on
> this
 release?
 
 On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
>>> meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> 
 wrote:
 
> Hi All,
> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> 0.11.0
>>> is
> still open.
> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> 
> Thanks,
> Meghna
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
>>> meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
 release
>> candidate 3.
>> 
>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>> 
>> Vote thread:
>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> 
> 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[John D. Ament]

Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:

- The NOTICE file is wrong.  Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to the
NOTICE file.
- The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
contributors to that file have signed ICLAs, otherwise we need some kind of
agreement they are OK with moving to NOTICE file (which is how this has
been handled in the past).

Please create JIRAs to track these.

John

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:

> I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that all
> contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing project.
>
> We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for the
> largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible wording
> there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most are
> covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause 5 of
> Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.
>
> To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
> "Copyright  by Contributors".
>
> Hen
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell  wrote:
>
> > Hi Henri,
> >
> > If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed
> to
> > the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part
> of
> > IP Clearance.
> >
> > It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
> >
> > Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the incubator
> > who are not now committers?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > > On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> > >
> > > Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release.
> > Will
> > > review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
> > >
> > > There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code
> has
> > > been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dominic,
> > >>
> > >> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
> > Licensed
> > >> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> > >> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
> > >>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and
> vote?
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this
> project?
> > >>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
> > >>>
> > >>> Dom
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament <
> johndam...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
> > releases.
> >  Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there
> being
> > >> no
> >  SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check
> ICLAs
> > >> and
> >  files that have changed license.
> > 
> >  On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
> >  dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
> >  committers
> > > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on
> > >> this
> > > release?
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> >  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > >>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi All,
> > >> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> > >> 0.11.0
> >  is
> > >> still open.
> > >> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> > >>
> > >> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> > >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Meghna
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> >  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > >>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi all
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> > > release
> > >>> candidate 3.
> > >>>
> > >>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Vote thread:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > >> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > >>
> > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > >> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Result thread:
> > >>>
> > >>> 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Henri Yandell]

I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that all
contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing project.

We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for the
largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible wording
there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most are
covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause 5 of
Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.

To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
"Copyright  by Contributors".

Hen

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell  wrote:

> Hi Henri,
>
> If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed to
> the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part of
> IP Clearance.
>
> It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
>
> Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the incubator
> who are not now committers?
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
> > On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> >
> > Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release.
> Will
> > review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
> >
> > There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code has
> > been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dominic,
> >>
> >> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
> Licensed
> >> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> >> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
> >>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and vote?
> >>>
> >>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this project?
> >>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
> >>>
> >>> Dom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
> releases.
>  Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there being
> >> no
>  SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check ICLAs
> >> and
>  files that have changed license.
> 
>  On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
>  dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
>  committers
> > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on
> >> this
> > release?
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
>  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> >>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> >> 0.11.0
>  is
> >> still open.
> >> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Meghna
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
>  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> > release
> >>> candidate 3.
> >>>
> >>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> >>>
> >>> Vote thread:
> >>>
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> >> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> >>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> >> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Result thread:
> >>>
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> >> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> >>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> >> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> >>> found
> > at:
> >>>
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> >>> <
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The release tag can be found here:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and
> >>> can
> > be
> >> found here:
> >>> 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[John D. Ament]

Well, specific to what I'm seeing in MXNet's release, where I'm concerned
is that almost all of the files have the "Licensed to the ASF" header.  If
there was an existing copyright on there before, that should remain,
regardless of whether the license is apache v2 or not, unless every single
contributor to that file has signed an ICLA.  I haven't found any yet, but
I'm inclined to give this a +1 (but that's not my vote yet) with notes that
they need to be very thorough on which files are actually licensed to us vs
from authors not on ICLAs.

John

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:01 PM Craig Russell  wrote:

> Hi Henri,
>
> If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed to
> the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part of
> IP Clearance.
>
> It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
>
> Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the incubator
> who are not now committers?
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
> > On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> >
> > Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release.
> Will
> > review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
> >
> > There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code has
> > been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Dominic,
> >>
> >> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
> Licensed
> >> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> >> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
> >>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and vote?
> >>>
> >>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this project?
> >>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
> >>>
> >>> Dom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
> releases.
>  Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there being
> >> no
>  SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check ICLAs
> >> and
>  files that have changed license.
> 
>  On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
>  dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
>  wrote:
> 
> > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
>  committers
> > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on
> >> this
> > release?
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
>  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> >>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> >> 0.11.0
>  is
> >> still open.
> >> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Meghna
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
>  meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> > release
> >>> candidate 3.
> >>>
> >>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> >>>
> >>> Vote thread:
> >>>
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> >> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> >>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> >> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Result thread:
> >>>
> >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> >> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> >>
> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> >> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> >>> found
> > at:
> >>>
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> >>> <
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The release tag can be found here:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and
> >>> can
> > be
> >> found here:
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Craig Russell]

Hi Henri,

If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed to the 
project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part of IP 
Clearance.

It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0. 

Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the incubator who 
are not now committers?

Regards,

Craig

> On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> 
> Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release. Will
> review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
> 
> There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code has
> been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
>> Dominic,
>> 
>> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache Licensed
>> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
>> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
>>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and vote?
>>> 
>>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this project?
>>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
>>> 
>>> Dom
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review releases.
 Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there being
>> no
 SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check ICLAs
>> and
 files that have changed license.
 
 On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
 dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
> Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
 committers
> for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on
>> this
> release?
> 
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
 meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
>> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
>> 0.11.0
 is
>> still open.
>> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
>> 
>> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Meghna
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
 meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
>> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all
>>> 
>>> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> release
>>> candidate 3.
>>> 
>>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>>> 
>>> Vote thread:
>>> 
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
>> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
>> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Result thread:
>>> 
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
>> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
>> 
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
>> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
>>> found
> at:
>>> 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
>>> <
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The release tag can be found here:
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and
>>> can
> be
>> found here:
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
>> ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd <
>> https://github.com/apache/
>> incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>>> AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
>>> 
>>> 
>>> KEY files are available here:
>>> 
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
>>> <
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For information about the contents of this release, see:
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
>> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
>> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Henri Yandell]

Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release. Will
review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.

There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code has
been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament  wrote:

> Dominic,
>
> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache Licensed
> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
> > Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and vote?
> >
> > Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this project?
> > Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
> >
> > Dom
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review releases.
> > > Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there being
> no
> > > SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check ICLAs
> and
> > > files that have changed license.
> > >
> > > On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
> > > dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
> > > committers
> > > > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on
> this
> > > > release?
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> > > meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating)
> 0.11.0
> > > is
> > > > > still open.
> > > > > The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> > > > >
> > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Meghna
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> > > meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> > > > release
> > > > > > candidate 3.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vote thread:
> > > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > > > > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > > > > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Result thread:
> > > > > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > > > > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > > > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > > > > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> > found
> > > > at:
> > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> > <
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The release tag can be found here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > found here:
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> > > > > ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd <
> https://github.com/apache/
> > > > > incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > > > AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KEY files are available here:
> > > > > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> > <
> > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > > > > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > > > > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > > > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > >
> > 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Dominic Divakaruni]

Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and vote?

Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this project?
Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.

Dom


On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review releases.
> Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there being no
> SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check ICLAs and
> files that have changed license.
>
> On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
> committers
> > for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on this
> > release?
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0
> is
> > > still open.
> > > The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Meghna
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <
> meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> > release
> > > > candidate 3.
> > > >
> > > > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> > > >
> > > > Vote thread:
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Result thread:
> > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
> > at:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The release tag can be found here:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can
> > be
> > > found here:
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> > > ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd  > > incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > > AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > KEY files are available here:
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > Dominic Divakaruni
> > 206.475.9200 Cell
> >
>



-- 


Dominic Divakaruni
206.475.9200 Cell

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[John D. Ament]

Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review releases.
Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there being no
SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check ICLAs and
files that have changed license.

On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" 
wrote:

> Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the committers
> for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on this
> release?
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> > This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 is
> > still open.
> > The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Meghna
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0,
> release
> > > candidate 3.
> > >
> > > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> > >
> > > Vote thread:
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> > 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > >
> > >
> > > Result thread:
> > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> > 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > >
> > >
> > > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
> at:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> > >
> > >
> > > The release tag can be found here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> > >
> > >
> > > The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can
> be
> > found here:
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> > ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd  > incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
> > >
> > >
> > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > > AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> > >
> > >
> > > KEY files are available here:
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> > >
> > >
> > > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> > 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
> > >
> > >
> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dominic Divakaruni
> 206.475.9200 Cell
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Dominic Divakaruni]

Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the committers
for this project provide binding votes on general@ to weigh in on this
release?

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Meghna Baijal 
wrote:

> Hi All,
> This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 is
> still open.
> The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because…
>
> Thanks,
> Meghna
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
> > candidate 3.
> >
> > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea
> 823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >
> >
> > Result thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13
> 050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> >
> >
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> >
> >
> > The release tag can be found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> >
> >
> > The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be
> found here:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd  incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
> >
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> >
> >
> > KEY files are available here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ <
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> >
> >
> > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.
> 11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
> >
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>


-- 


Dominic Divakaruni
206.475.9200 Cell

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Hi All, 
This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 is still 
open.
The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because…

Thanks,
Meghna



> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal  wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
> candidate 3.
> 
> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> 
> Vote thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Result thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>  
> 
> 
> 
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 
> 
> 
> 
> The release tag can be found here: 
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 
> 
> 
> 
> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be found 
> here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> 
> 
> KEY files are available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 
> 
> 
> 
> For information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate
>  
> 
> 
> 
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> 
> Thanks.

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Hi all

This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
candidate 3.

Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
 



Result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
 



The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 



The release tag can be found here: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 



The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be found 
here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd
 



Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549


KEY files are available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 



For information about the contents of this release, see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate
 



The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Thanks.