Re: Dependency directories?

2017-08-29 Thread Chris Olivier 
I've been curious about the same thing. How do other Apache projects handle
this sort of thing?

What's are the pros and cons?


On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:57 PM Henri Yandell  wrote:

> What's the plan for the source that isn't included in the mxnet repo?
>
>  cub/
>  dlpack/
>  dmlc-core/
>  mshadow/
>  nnvm/
>  ps-lite/
>
> Is the plan to keep those as separate DMLC packages, or to consider them
> MXNet specific?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen
>

Re: MXNet site questions

2017-08-29 Thread Henri Yandell 
Thanks Yao :)

Note on source that the links should be to mirrors rather than directly to
Apache.  PGP/SHA/MD5 links to dist.apache.org make sense.

I'll open some issues in the site GitHub project.

Hen

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Yao Wang  wrote:

> I just talked with apache guy to enable github issue. For apache
> information on the website, currently we have apache incubator disclaimer
> on as home page footer. Also we’ll have source package, PGP, SHA and MD5
> links to apache pages. Would you like to add anything here?
>
> 
>
> > We need to ask Apache infrastructure team about GitHub issue and website
> > permission.
> > Currently most images on website are stored under dmlc/web-data repo and
> a
> > few on data.mxnet.io. Also need to ask apache if we want to move them to
> > somewhere apache controls. Maybe another repo similar to web-data to
> store
> > all website related static resources.
> >
> > 2017-08-25 19:26 GMT-07:00 Henri Yandell  > >:
> >
> >> * Could Issues be turned on for the site so we can report site issues?
> >> * How does one go about getting permission to the site?
> >> * Apache footer needed (Copyright/trademarks statement)
> >> * Need to add some links to Apache pages (Foundation page, Sponsors,
> >> ApacheCon jump to mind)
> >> * The logo is being pulled from mxnet.io
> >>
> >
> >
>

ICLAs vs Contributors

2017-08-29 Thread Henri Yandell 
(cc to John and Justin as they'd asked about this)

Looking at the current MXNet GitHub contributors list (411 contributors):

We have 36 signed CLAs at this point.

Of the top 36 contributors, the following 15 top contributors aren't
covered by a CLA:

8:sneakerkg
9:kevinthesun  (post Incubation)
17:hjk41
18:mavenlin
19:tornadomeet
20:winstywang
21:jermainewang
22:qiaohaijun
23:vchuravy
25:Roshrini  (post Incubation)
26:howard0su
28:sbodenstein
31:ptrendx  (post Incubation)
35:zackchase   (post Incubation)
36:yanqingmen

Note that some of these are post entering the Incubator.

Some of the 411 contributors we should ask for CLA/SGs from. Those above
are most likely the first to get agreements signed from, and we need to
determine how far down the list to go.

The git logs are trickier to use as they don't use the github login; so
doing an analysis of the diffs themselves is trickier.

Hen

Dependency directories?

2017-08-29 Thread Henri Yandell 
What's the plan for the source that isn't included in the mxnet repo?

 cub/
 dlpack/
 dmlc-core/
 mshadow/
 nnvm/
 ps-lite/

Is the plan to keep those as separate DMLC packages, or to consider them
MXNet specific?

Thanks,

Hen

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

2017-08-29 Thread 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
>

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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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
>> >

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 269

2017-08-29 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/269/

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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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:
> >>>

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 268

2017-08-29 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/268/

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 267

2017-08-29 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/267/

Re: MXNet site questions

2017-08-29 Thread Yao Wang 
I just talked with apache guy to enable github issue. For apache
information on the website, currently we have apache incubator disclaimer
on as home page footer. Also we’ll have source package, PGP, SHA and MD5
links to apache pages. Would you like to add anything here?



> We need to ask Apache infrastructure team about GitHub issue and website
> permission.
> Currently most images on website are stored under dmlc/web-data repo and a
> few on data.mxnet.io. Also need to ask apache if we want to move them to
> somewhere apache controls. Maybe another repo similar to web-data to store
> all website related static resources.
>
> 2017-08-25 19:26 GMT-07:00 Henri Yandell  >:
>
>> * Could Issues be turned on for the site so we can report site issues?
>> * How does one go about getting permission to the site?
>> * Apache footer needed (Copyright/trademarks statement)
>> * Need to add some links to Apache pages (Foundation page, Sponsors,
>> ApacheCon jump to mind)
>> * The logo is being pulled from mxnet.io
>>
>
>

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 266

2017-08-29 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/266/

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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

2017-08-29 Thread 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

[BUILD FAILED] Branch master build 265

2017-08-29 Thread Apache Jenkins Server 
Build for MXNet branch master has broken. Please view the build at 
https://builds.apache.org/job/incubator-mxnet/job/master/265/