Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello Sergio,
This is how the NOTICE file looks at the moment -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.0.0/NOTICE

I had worked on the NOTICE file prior to the 0.11.0 Release and had
followed the link you mentioned.
I had added a few notices into this file, including Caffe, MS coco etc but
there were comments during the general voting process for 0.11.0 to remove
these.
These comments are tracked in this Github issue -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7748.

According to me the NOTICE file is ok, but do you think you could help us
review it ?

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Bhavin Thaker 
wrote:

> Hi Sergio,
>
> Thanks for guidance.
>
> The binary file has been removed now.
> See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/
> gradle/wrapper
>
> We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end
> of today.
>
> Regards,
> Bhavin Thaker.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:
> >
> > * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
> > licensed dependency.
> > * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> > * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
> >
> > The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address
> some
> > issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
> > binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
> > vote for a RC2.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g.
> > [15][16]
> > > > [18]
> > > > > >> [19] and many others
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies.
> > I'll
> > > > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a
> third-party/
> > > > > > directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a
> lot
> > > > > easier to review.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> > > don't
> > > > > > need to name them.
> > > > >
> > > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3]
> > but
> > > is
> > > > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > > > LICENSE
> > > > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix
> > up
> > > > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot
> of
> > > > help.
> > > > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss
> > something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-
> principle
> > > > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the
> > MXNet
> > > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already
> > being
> > > > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to
> > list
> > > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> > > unless listed specifically.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Bhavin Thaker]

Hi Sergio,

Thanks for guidance.

The binary file has been removed now.
See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper

We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end
of today.

Regards,
Bhavin Thaker.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández  wrote:

> Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:
>
> * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
> licensed dependency.
> * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
>
> The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some
> issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
> binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
> vote for a RC2.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g.
> [15][16]
> > > [18]
> > > > >> [19] and many others
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies.
> I'll
> > > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > > > > directory.
> > > >
> > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> > > > easier to review.
> > > >
> > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> > don't
> > > > > need to name them.
> > > >
> > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > > >
> > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > > >
> > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3]
> but
> > is
> > > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > > LICENSE
> > > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > > >
> > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix
> up
> > > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of
> > > help.
> > > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss
> something.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the
> MXNet
> > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already
> being
> > > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> > >
> >
> > Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to
> list
> > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> > unless listed specifically.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:

* Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
licensed dependency.
* For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
* For all other licenses, either guess or ask.

The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some
issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
vote for a RC2.


On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16]
> > [18]
> > > >> [19] and many others
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > > > directory.
> > >
> > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> > > easier to review.
> > >
> > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> don't
> > > > need to name them.
> > >
> > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > >
> > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > >
> > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but
> is
> > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > LICENSE
> > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > >
> > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up
> > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of
> > help.
> > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> >
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet
> > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being
> > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> >
>
> Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to list
> those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> unless listed specifically.
>
>
> >
> > Hen
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[John D. Ament]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16]
> [18]
> > >> [19] and many others
> > >>
> > >
> > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > > directory.
> >
> > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> > easier to review.
> >
> > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't
> > > need to name them.
> >
> > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> >
> > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> >
> > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is
> > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> LICENSE
> > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> >
> > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up
> > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of
> help.
> > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
>
>
> Fair enough.
>
> My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet
> package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being
> listed then that's a weak argument :)
>

Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to list
those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
unless listed specifically.


>
> Hen
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Hen]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
> >> [19] and many others
> >>
> >
> > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > directory.
>
> Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> easier to review.
>
> > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't
> > need to name them.
>
> In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
>
> > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
>
> Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is
> useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in LICENSE
> so it seemed odd to omit it.
>
> Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up
> what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of help.
> Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep


Fair enough.

My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet
package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being
listed then that's a weak argument :)

Hen

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello Justin, Henri,
Thank you for your input.

Justin,
Chris ran Apache Rat on MXNet this morning. Several issues found here, in
addition to your comments that needed a fix have been addressed in the
following 2 PRS -
1. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8873/
2. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8876/

It would be helpful if you could review these changes.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal



On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
> >> [19] and many others
> >>
> >
> > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > directory.
>
> Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> easier to review.
>
> > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't
> > need to name them.
>
> In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
>
> > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
>
> Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is
> useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in LICENSE
> so it seemed odd to omit it.
>
> Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up
> what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of help.
> Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

>> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
>> [19] and many others
>> 
> 
> Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> directory. 

Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot easier to 
review.

> Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't
> need to name them.

In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]

> If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.

Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few exceptions. 
[2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is useful to list 
and you're listing other Apache licensed software in LICENSE so it seemed odd 
to omit it.

Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up what it 
finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of help. Just try 
not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Hen]

Thanks Justin.

Some comments inline on ones I don't think need fixing; but afaict from
MXNet dev@ activity the plan is to produce a new release and restart the
vote.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> -1 binding due to license, header issues and having a compiled jar in a
> source release.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes correct
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has issues (see below) I also note that license issues brought
> up last time have not all been addressed. [22]
> - NOTICE seem rather brief considering the number of Apache licensed
> inclusion do any of them have NOTICE files?
>

We can double check, but I know the ones I've looked at didn't use NOTICE
files (the various dmlc/ projects). Plus as these are GitHub submodules, if
they did the NOTICE would automatically come over.


> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
> [19] and many others
>

Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
directory. Given the impact of that to builds etc, I'm hoping that can go
in a subsequent release.



> - A number of source look to have had the ASF header incorrectly added.
> - Binary included in source release [20] Note there’s an unresolved legal
> issue about this [21]
>
> Have you run rat on this release it would of help pick up most of these
> issues?
>
> In this file [1] there’s a copyright notice but it also has an ASF header
> which is a little odd. This also occurs in a number of other places.
>

This came up in the previous release (but the opposite way).

When the code came in from MXNet, it had "Copyright Contributors". We
removed that because 'what a useless statement' :), however as there are
400+ contributors and not everyone has signed a CLA, the previous release
vote asked the project to put it back in again, so they did. It's an
eyesore, but we're a bit stuck unless we're prepared to move away from our
rules of "Never remove or move a Copyright statement without approval" and
"Never edit a copyright statement".

We could (I guess) put a comment above it of "# Original MXNet copyright
statement" or some such.


>
> This file [2] also look to incorrectly have an ASF header and it’s unclear
> how the original code is licensed. From a quick like their seems to be many
> files that incorrectly have ASF headers on them e.g. [5][6][7]
> [10][12][13][14] and others.
>
> This file [3] (and others) looks to come from the TVM project which is not
> mentioned in license.
>

Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't
need to name them.  If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE
file.


>
> The license for this file [4] is missing from license.
>
> The link for JQuery [8] is missing from the license. Also missing license
> for these files [9][11][17] and probably others.
>
> At this point I gave up so there may be other issues.
>

Understood. A lot of these are systematic characteristics of the project
rather than flat out issues, but definitely some good finds here too.


>
> It also a good idea to publish your keys:
> gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-in
> cubating.tar.gz'
> gpg: Signature made Sat 25 Nov 07:48:02 2017 AEDT
> gpg:using RSA key 80FD81D7703DF31B
> gpg: requesting key 80FD81D7703DF31B from hkps server
> hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
> gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
>
> It’s also a good idea to sign with an apache email address rather than a
> gmail one.
>
> I’m also curious about “CODEOWNERS” file as that doesn’t seem to fit with
> any Apache model I’m aware of.
>

This is a GitHub feature. The name is unfortunate and perhaps we could add
a comment explaining what it is. It allows for automatic addition of
reviewers to a pull request. Kind of like a watch on the code.

The important thing is that a project should never tell a committer they
can't put their name in as a codeowner nee automatic-reviewer.


>
> In “CONTRIBUTORS” there’s a long list of contributors - are their plan to
> make any of these people committers?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/perl-package/AI-MXNe
> t/lib/AI/MXNet.pm
> 2. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/image-classi
> fication/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
> 3. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/src/op/op_util.cc
> 4. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/searcht
> ools_custom.js
> 5. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/nn/pool.h
> 6. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
> /nn/deformable_im2col.h
> 7. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib
> /psroi_pooling-inl.h
> 8. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/jquery-1.11.1.js
> 9. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cub/test/mersenne.h
> 10. 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

-1 binding due to license, header issues and having a compiled jar in a source 
release.

I checked:
- incubating in name 
- signatures and hashes correct
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has issues (see below) I also note that license issues brought up 
last time have not all been addressed. [22]
- NOTICE seem rather brief considering the number of Apache licensed inclusion 
do any of them have NOTICE files?
- A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18] [19] 
and many others
- A number of source look to have had the ASF header incorrectly added.
- Binary included in source release [20] Note there’s an unresolved legal issue 
about this [21]

Have you run rat on this release it would of help pick up most of these issues?

In this file [1] there’s a copyright notice but it also has an ASF header which 
is a little odd. This also occurs in a number of other places.

This file [2] also look to incorrectly have an ASF header and it’s unclear how 
the original code is licensed. From a quick like their seems to be many files 
that incorrectly have ASF headers on them e.g. [5][6][7] [10][12][13][14] and 
others. 

This file [3] (and others) looks to come from the TVM project which is not 
mentioned in license.

The license for this file [4] is missing from license.

The link for JQuery [8] is missing from the license. Also missing license for 
these files [9][11][17] and probably others.

At this point I gave up so there may be other issues.

It also a good idea to publish your keys:
gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made Sat 25 Nov 07:48:02 2017 AEDT
gpg:using RSA key 80FD81D7703DF31B
gpg: requesting key 80FD81D7703DF31B from hkps server 
hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
gpg: Can't check signature: No public key

It’s also a good idea to sign with an apache email address rather than a gmail 
one.

I’m also curious about “CODEOWNERS” file as that doesn’t seem to fit with any 
Apache model I’m aware of.

In “CONTRIBUTORS” there’s a long list of contributors - are their plan to make 
any of these people committers?

Thanks,
Justin

1. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/perl-package/AI-MXNet/lib/AI/MXNet.pm
2. 
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/image-classification/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
3. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/src/op/op_util.cc
4. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/searchtools_custom.js
5. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/nn/pool.h
6. 
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib/nn/deformable_im2col.h
7. 
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/contrib/psroi_pooling-inl.h
8. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/docs/_static/jquery-1.11.1.js
9. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cub/test/mersenne.h
10. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/cmake/Modules/FindJeMalloc.cmake
11.  
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/cmake/Modules/FindCrypto.cmake
12. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/decode_mxnet.sh
13. 
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/speech-demo/io_func/convert2kaldi.py
14. ./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/src/operator/special_functions-inl.h
15. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/example/rnn/bucket_R/rnn.train.R
16. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/tests/travis/r_vignettes.R
17. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/matlab/+mxnet/private/parse_json.m
18  apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/ps-lite/tests/test_simple_app.cc
19. 
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/dmlc-core/tracker/yarn/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/yarn/dmlc/ApplicationMaster.java
20. 
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc0-incubating/nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
21.  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-288
22. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7749


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

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Thank you Dave, Sergio and Henri for your comments.
I will make sure to follow the points specified by you in future emails.

Sergio,
In reference to the two points you mentioned for your negative vote, I
would like to add this -
1. Tianqi Chen has confirmed (via slack) that for this binary '
nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar’ there isn't a
notice file that should be added.
2. The addition of the copyright line that you mentioned was discussed in
the 0.11.0 vote thread.
In order to track these comments from 0.11.0 release, I created this github
issue — https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7749
And this Issue was fixed for the 1.0.0 release in this PR —
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8688

However, if you still believe that we are missing something, I can make
changes immediately after this release to fix any gaps.

Currently, the goal is to have MXNet version 1.0.0 release ready before the
NIPS conference that starts on 04-Dec, 2017 and it would be helpful if you
would be ok to change your vote to a positive one considering these points.
We will definitely fix any pending issues immediately after the release.


Thanks,

Meghna Baijal

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Hen  wrote:

> Thank you for the review Sergio :)
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Incubator DISCLAIMER included.
> > * LICENSE file contains information that should go in the NOTICE.
> >
>
> Interested in which you think should be in there. The license file is
> pointing to licenses lower in the tree that contain their various items.
> One could argue the Copyright for the BSD etc should either be in LICENSE
> or NOTICE, but it is in those lower directories.
>
>
> > * Build worked fine on my desktop (Ubuntu 17.10, GCC 7.2.0).
> >
> > * I'd put the install instruction somewhere more prominent
> > than docs/install/index.md, and probably more CLI-friendly text
> document.
> > Actually I was confused by the very different instruction from
> > http://mxnet.apache.org/install/index.html So always take into account
> > usability of your source release.
> >
>
> This one always bothers me too. I get why there are lots of .md files,
> that's how life on GitHub works, but it makes life difficult when reviewing
> the source tarball.
>
>
> > * The KEYS file are not correctly linked in the VOTE email. They weren't
> > that hard to find at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
> > mxnet/KEYS, but should be properly linked..
> >
> > Event thoughmy vote for this RC1 is -1 (binding), because:
> >
> > * Binary nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar is
> > distributed without NOTICE.
> >
>
> Noting that nnvm is a third party app (though one that some of the MXNet
> committers work on). Perhaps a bug report/patch could be submitted there.
>
> However, the gradle wrapper is under Apache 2.0, and does not have a NOTICE
> file (uppercase NOTICE). NNVM has an Apache 2.0 license in its root. It's
> not as user friendly as it could be, but I believe it is being distributed
> with license notice (lower case notice), which is all the license requires.
>
> (While Gradle does have additional licensing in their LICENSE file, I don't
> see any of that in the gradle-wrapper.jar).
>
>
> > * Files' header contain, after the normative ASF license header,
> confusing
> > copyright information that should be cleaned to avoid confusions.
> >
>
> If you mean:
>
>  *  Copyright (c) 2017 by Contributors
>
> Then that was reintroduced by specific request of a previous Incubator
> vote/Incubator PMC feedback. Not all the code is covered by a CLA/grant (I
> counted 400 contributors), so the original Copyright statement is
> maintained (the enormously ugly 'Copyright Contributors').
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Hen]

Thank you for the review Sergio :)

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Sergio Fernández  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> * Incubator DISCLAIMER included.
> * LICENSE file contains information that should go in the NOTICE.
>

Interested in which you think should be in there. The license file is
pointing to licenses lower in the tree that contain their various items.
One could argue the Copyright for the BSD etc should either be in LICENSE
or NOTICE, but it is in those lower directories.


> * Build worked fine on my desktop (Ubuntu 17.10, GCC 7.2.0).
>
> * I'd put the install instruction somewhere more prominent
> than docs/install/index.md, and probably more CLI-friendly text document.
> Actually I was confused by the very different instruction from
> http://mxnet.apache.org/install/index.html So always take into account
> usability of your source release.
>

This one always bothers me too. I get why there are lots of .md files,
that's how life on GitHub works, but it makes life difficult when reviewing
the source tarball.


> * The KEYS file are not correctly linked in the VOTE email. They weren't
> that hard to find at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
> mxnet/KEYS, but should be properly linked..
>
> Event thoughmy vote for this RC1 is -1 (binding), because:
>
> * Binary nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar is
> distributed without NOTICE.
>

Noting that nnvm is a third party app (though one that some of the MXNet
committers work on). Perhaps a bug report/patch could be submitted there.

However, the gradle wrapper is under Apache 2.0, and does not have a NOTICE
file (uppercase NOTICE). NNVM has an Apache 2.0 license in its root. It's
not as user friendly as it could be, but I believe it is being distributed
with license notice (lower case notice), which is all the license requires.

(While Gradle does have additional licensing in their LICENSE file, I don't
see any of that in the gradle-wrapper.jar).


> * Files' header contain, after the normative ASF license header, confusing
> copyright information that should be cleaned to avoid confusions.
>

If you mean:

 *  Copyright (c) 2017 by Contributors

Then that was reintroduced by specific request of a previous Incubator
vote/Incubator PMC feedback. Not all the code is covered by a CLA/grant (I
counted 400 contributors), so the original Copyright statement is
maintained (the enormously ugly 'Copyright Contributors').

Thanks,

Hen

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

I correct myself, this is not the first incubating release.
My bad, I couldn't find traces of previous incubating releases to download
from the podling site.
I'll go back to check if previous VOTEs had similar issues.
So all my comments on 1.0.0-RC0 still remain valid though.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Sergio Fernández  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> * Incubator DISCLAIMER included.
> * LICENSE file contains information that should go in the NOTICE.
> * Build worked fine on my desktop (Ubuntu 17.10, GCC 7.2.0).
>
> * I'd put the install instruction somewhere more prominent
> than docs/install/index.md, and probably more CLI-friendly text document.
> Actually I was confused by the very different instruction from
> http://mxnet.apache.org/install/index.html So always take into account
> usability of your source release.
> * The KEYS file are not correctly linked in the VOTE email. They weren't
> that hard to find at https://dist.apache.org/rep
> os/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS, but should be properly linked..
>
> Event thoughmy vote for this RC1 is -1 (binding), because:
>
> * Binary nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar is
> distributed without NOTICE.
> * Files' header contain, after the normative ASF license header, confusing
> copyright information that should be cleaned to avoid confusions.
>
> Anyway, congratulations for such big milestone. Based on my experience,
> the first incubating release is always difficult. So, if you need some more
> mentor power, I could jump into dev@mxnet to help your with the upcoming
> RCs.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Dave Fisher 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi -
>>
>> > On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Chris Olivier 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello All,
>> >
>> >
>> > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
>> > candidate 0.
>> >
>> >
>> > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>> >
>> >
>> > *Vote thread:*
>> >
>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5fb6766c
>> > 7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> >
>> > *Result thread:*
>> >
>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96afd059082
>> > ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>> >
>>
>> It looks like the true results are:
>>
>> IPMC Binding (mentor): 1
>> Sebastian
>>
>> PPMC “Binding”: 3
>> Chris Oliver
>> Indhu Bharanthi
>> Haibin Lin
>>
>> Contributors: 2
>>
>> There is already one IPMC vote and you are looking for two more.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>
>> >
>> > *The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
>> at:*
>> >
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc0/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *The release tag can be found here: *
>> >
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc0
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *The release hash is *862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606* and
>> can be
>> > found here:*
>> >
>> > > > 862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
>> >
>> > 69FF E8D6 1051 FFE7 E61B 02C2 80FD 81D7 703D F31B
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *KEY files are available here:*
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > *For information about the contents of this release, see:*
>> >
>> > > > Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0+Release+Notes>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>> >
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0
>> >
>> > [ ] +0 no opinion
>> >
>> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > Chris Olivier
>>
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Sergio Fernández]

Hi,

* Incubator DISCLAIMER included.
* LICENSE file contains information that should go in the NOTICE.
* Build worked fine on my desktop (Ubuntu 17.10, GCC 7.2.0).

* I'd put the install instruction somewhere more prominent
than docs/install/index.md, and probably more CLI-friendly text document.
Actually I was confused by the very different instruction from
http://mxnet.apache.org/install/index.html So always take into account
usability of your source release.
* The KEYS file are not correctly linked in the VOTE email. They weren't
that hard to find at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
mxnet/KEYS, but should be properly linked..

Event thoughmy vote for this RC1 is -1 (binding), because:

* Binary nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar is
distributed without NOTICE.
* Files' header contain, after the normative ASF license header, confusing
copyright information that should be cleaned to avoid confusions.

Anyway, congratulations for such big milestone. Based on my experience, the
first incubating release is always difficult. So, if you need some more
mentor power, I could jump into dev@mxnet to help your with the upcoming
RCs.

Cheers,


On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi -
>
> > On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Chris Olivier 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> >
> > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
> > candidate 0.
> >
> >
> > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> >
> >
> > *Vote thread:*
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5fb6766c
> > 7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> >
> > *Result thread:*
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96afd059082
> > ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
>
> It looks like the true results are:
>
> IPMC Binding (mentor): 1
> Sebastian
>
> PPMC “Binding”: 3
> Chris Oliver
> Indhu Bharanthi
> Haibin Lin
>
> Contributors: 2
>
> There is already one IPMC vote and you are looking for two more.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> >
> > *The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
> at:*
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc0/
> >
> >
> >
> > *The release tag can be found here: *
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc0
> >
> >
> >
> > *The release hash is *862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606* and can
> be
> > found here:*
> >
> >  > 862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606>
> >
> >
> >
> > *Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
> >
> > 69FF E8D6 1051 FFE7 E61B 02C2 80FD 81D7 703D F31B
> >
> >
> >
> > *KEY files are available here:*
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> > *For information about the contents of this release, see:*
> >
> >  > Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0+Release+Notes>
> >
> >
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0
> >
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> >
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > Chris Olivier
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

> On Nov 27, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Chris Olivier  wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
> candidate 0.
> 
> 
> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> 
> 
> *Vote thread:*
> 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5fb6766c
> 7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> 
> 
> *Result thread:*
> 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96afd059082
> ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> 

It looks like the true results are:

IPMC Binding (mentor): 1
Sebastian

PPMC “Binding”: 3
Chris Oliver
Indhu Bharanthi
Haibin Lin

Contributors: 2

There is already one IPMC vote and you are looking for two more.

Regards,
Dave

> 
> *The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:*
> 
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc0/
> 
> 
> 
> *The release tag can be found here: *
> 
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc0
> 
> 
> 
> *The release hash is *862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606* and can be
> found here:*
> 
>  862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606>
> 
> 
> 
> *Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
> 
> 69FF E8D6 1051 FFE7 E61B 02C2 80FD 81D7 703D F31B
> 
> 
> 
> *KEY files are available here:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *For information about the contents of this release, see:*
> 
>  Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0+Release+Notes>
> 
> 
> 
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> 
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0
> 
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> 
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Chris Olivier



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Chris Olivier]

Hello All,


This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
candidate 0.


Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.


*Vote thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5fb6766c
7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*Result thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96afd059082
ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%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/1.0.0.rc0/



*The release tag can be found here: *

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc0



*The release hash is *862629d056fe57e0afcf987f7708967bbe29e606* and can be
found here:*





*Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*

69FF E8D6 1051 FFE7 E61B 02C2 80FD 81D7 703D F31B



*KEY files are available here:*





*For information about the contents of this release, see:*





The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.


[ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0

[ ] +0 no opinion

[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


Thanks,


Chris Olivier