Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Frank McQuillan]

Thank you to Justin, Roman and Konstantin for the thorough review.  We will
make the recommended changes as part of the next release.

Regards,
Frank

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik  wrote:

> +1
>
> - checksums/signatures are Ok
> - rat is clean (although, having 700+ files without a header looks
> confusing)
> - can build
>
> On the comments side (on top of what Justine already caught):
>   - having a pom just for running rat? Might as well hook up all the cmake
> shenanigan to it and safe the labor of having everybody read the
> instructions
>   - sha1/md5 aren't secure checksums. Please consider moving to sha512 or
> similar
>
> Cos
>
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 12:24PM, Frank McQuillan wrote:
> > Hello Incubator PMC,
> >
> > Thank you in advance for reviewing MADlib v1.9-rc1.
> >
> > This is the 2nd ASF release for Apache MADlib (incubating).  The goal of
> > this 2nd release is:  general availability of MADlib v1.9 for community
> use.
> >
> > The software in this release is very similar to the 1st ASF release
> MADlib
> > v1.9alpha on 3/11/16.  The main differences are bug fixes, license and
> > notice clarifications, and minor updates.  Feature set is the same.
> >
> > Reminder of thread for IPMC vote passing of 1st ASF release:
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201603.mbox/%3ccakbqfztg+w4ub6t5awf1gemsxy5ad+j3xnozfkyxmzwd3ro...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> > which was intended in part to clear all potential IP issues in the code
> > base and make it legally ready to be adopted by the community.
> >
> > Reminder of the Apache MADlib (incubating) community vote:
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAKBQfzSkXyGVQSKrY99zc9UmTE_NfXcYrxDGB%3DCMBmuCKLxbAg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > The specific license and notice recommendations raised by the IPMC during
> > the positive vote for MADlib v1.9alpha have been addressed:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-979
> >
> > For more information including release notes, please see:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/MADlib+1.9
> >
> > This is a source code tarball only release.
> >
> > To run check RAT, please do:
> >
> > $mvn verify
> >
> > first to get the correct RAT output.  Look inside of pom.xml to see the
> > classes of exceptions we're managing there for RAT.
> >
> > We're voting on the source (tag): rc/v1.9-rc1
> >
> > Source Files:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/1.9-incubating-rc1/
> >
> > Commit to be voted on:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-madlib.git;a=commit;h=cf59b4d9136cb3680e32800ac774ac977129
> >
> > KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/KEYS
> >
> > Please vote:
> >
> > [ ] +1  approve
> > [ ] +0  no opinion
> > [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > *** The vote will be open until Wed April 6 at 6 pm Pacific time. ***
>

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Konstantin Boudnik]

+1

- checksums/signatures are Ok
- rat is clean (although, having 700+ files without a header looks confusing)
- can build

On the comments side (on top of what Justine already caught): 
  - having a pom just for running rat? Might as well hook up all the cmake
shenanigan to it and safe the labor of having everybody read the
instructions
  - sha1/md5 aren't secure checksums. Please consider moving to sha512 or
similar

Cos

On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 12:24PM, Frank McQuillan wrote:
> Hello Incubator PMC,
> 
> Thank you in advance for reviewing MADlib v1.9-rc1.
> 
> This is the 2nd ASF release for Apache MADlib (incubating).  The goal of
> this 2nd release is:  general availability of MADlib v1.9 for community use.
> 
> The software in this release is very similar to the 1st ASF release MADlib
> v1.9alpha on 3/11/16.  The main differences are bug fixes, license and
> notice clarifications, and minor updates.  Feature set is the same.
> 
> Reminder of thread for IPMC vote passing of 1st ASF release:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201603.mbox/%3ccakbqfztg+w4ub6t5awf1gemsxy5ad+j3xnozfkyxmzwd3ro...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> which was intended in part to clear all potential IP issues in the code
> base and make it legally ready to be adopted by the community.
> 
> Reminder of the Apache MADlib (incubating) community vote:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAKBQfzSkXyGVQSKrY99zc9UmTE_NfXcYrxDGB%3DCMBmuCKLxbAg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> 
> The specific license and notice recommendations raised by the IPMC during
> the positive vote for MADlib v1.9alpha have been addressed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-979
> 
> For more information including release notes, please see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/MADlib+1.9
> 
> This is a source code tarball only release.
> 
> To run check RAT, please do:
> 
> $mvn verify
> 
> first to get the correct RAT output.  Look inside of pom.xml to see the
> classes of exceptions we're managing there for RAT.
> 
> We're voting on the source (tag): rc/v1.9-rc1
> 
> Source Files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/1.9-incubating-rc1/
> 
> Commit to be voted on:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-madlib.git;a=commit;h=cf59b4d9136cb3680e32800ac774ac977129
> 
> KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/KEYS
> 
> Please vote:
> 
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> 
> *** The vote will be open until Wed April 6 at 6 pm Pacific time. ***


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Konstantin Boudnik]

Yup, 

I found this quite confusing indeed to have a bunch of files like
modules/**/*.c without any licenses nor mentioning anywhere. Am I missing some
previous discussions that wave the need for the headers in those?

Cos

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:51PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > The only new files are build related cmake or yaml files.
> 
> That's probably OK but given the statement in the LICENSE that all files
> without Apache headers are BSD licensed it probably would of made sense to
> add the headers to reduce any confusion.
> 
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Frank McQuillan  wrote:
> Hello Incubator PMC,
>
> Thank you in advance for reviewing MADlib v1.9-rc1.
>
> This is the 2nd ASF release for Apache MADlib (incubating).  The goal of
> this 2nd release is:  general availability of MADlib v1.9 for community use.
>
> The software in this release is very similar to the 1st ASF release MADlib
> v1.9alpha on 3/11/16.  The main differences are bug fixes, license and
> notice clarifications, and minor updates.  Feature set is the same.
>
> Reminder of thread for IPMC vote passing of 1st ASF release:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201603.mbox/%3ccakbqfztg+w4ub6t5awf1gemsxy5ad+j3xnozfkyxmzwd3ro...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> which was intended in part to clear all potential IP issues in the code
> base and make it legally ready to be adopted by the community.
>
> Reminder of the Apache MADlib (incubating) community vote:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-dev/201602.mbox/%3CCAKBQfzSkXyGVQSKrY99zc9UmTE_NfXcYrxDGB%3DCMBmuCKLxbAg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The specific license and notice recommendations raised by the IPMC during
> the positive vote for MADlib v1.9alpha have been addressed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MADLIB-979
>
> For more information including release notes, please see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MADLIB/MADlib+1.9
>
> This is a source code tarball only release.
>
> To run check RAT, please do:
>
> $mvn verify
>
> first to get the correct RAT output.  Look inside of pom.xml to see the
> classes of exceptions we're managing there for RAT.
>
> We're voting on the source (tag): rc/v1.9-rc1
>
> Source Files:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/1.9-incubating-rc1/
>
> Commit to be voted on:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-madlib.git;a=commit;h=cf59b4d9136cb3680e32800ac774ac977129
>
> KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/madlib/KEYS
>
> Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

I have a small nit that the top level folder in the archive is called:
 incubator-madlib-master
instead of the usual:
 apache-madlib-1.9-incubating
Please consider fixing it for the next release. This will make downstream
distributor's life much easier.

Other than that

+1 (binding)

What I verified:
   * hashsums (MD5 and SHAs) and signature
   * compared the tag to the content of the tarball
   * compared the tag to the content of the previous release (the
delta, as Frank is saying is pretty small)
   * DISCLAIMER, LICENSE and NOTICE look good to me
   * RAT check and content of RAT exclusion list in pom.xml

Thanks,
Roman.

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

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

+1 binding

I checked:
- release name contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE good
- NOTICE has minor documentation issue
- Apache files have Apache headers. All 16 of them :-) -  there are 711 unknown 
but assumed BSD or Apache where trivial.
- No unexpected binary files in source release
- Can compile from source

Minor/trivial issues:
- Be nice if the release was signed by an apache email address rather than a 
gmail one.
- Given that the code by by EMC Corporation and  The Regents of the University 
of California are BSD licensed (and listed in LICENSE) there no need to add 
those copyrights to NOTICE. [1]
- You may want to double check copyright/license of [2] as it contains 
"Copyright (c) 2014 gpadmin” which in not mentioned in LICENSE.
- Looks like the section in the README under "incorporates material from the 
following third-party components” needs updating.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
2. ./src/ports/postgres/modules/pmml/table_to_pmml.sql_in


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

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> The only new files are build related cmake or yaml files.

That's probably OK but given the statement in the LICENSE that all files 
without Apache headers are BSD licensed it probably would of made sense to add 
the headers to reduce any confusion.

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

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Frank McQuillan]

Hi Justin,

The only new files are build related cmake or yaml files.   We
reviewed the policy
regarding files that do not require a license header from the apache
website (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html).

"A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file
does not require a license header."

Since the files in question are simple lists, we placed them in the exclude
list.

Kindly let us know if this is reasonable.

Frank

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Are the new files added since the previous release (and missing Apache
> headers) be considered under the Apache license or BSD license?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Are the new files added since the previous release (and missing Apache headers) 
be considered under the Apache license or BSD license?

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