Thanks for finding this, Aniket. It sounds like a good thing to fix in the
spec to me.
This also brings up a question for the Polaris community. JB said he would
“draft a proposal to update the Iceberg REST Spec *as well*“. Does the
Polaris community intend to maintain a separate REST protocol and
nteroperability about Iceberg
> >> (engines should know only the Iceberg REST Spec/Client).
> >> So, I'm more in favor of proposing directly REST spec changes at
> Iceberg.
> >>
> >> Thoughts ?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> JB
> &g
JB, there's one linked in the wiki here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/September24#polaris
I think the link that went out was bad. I also had trouble accessing it.
On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 2:17 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I already prepared the report us
I looked through the report and left a few comments. The report says that
this is the first report, but there is one from September/October last
year:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/INCUBATOR/September2024#polaris
My main comment is that I'd like to see these reports focus on communit
+1
It’s great to see the progress!
I did find a couple of minor things:
- RAT checks exclude all **.md files, which I don’t think is correct.
Luckily, commenting out that line and running RAT shows that all of the
markdown files have good license headers. Because the markdown has header
-1 (binding)
I don't think that the license documentation is sufficient. It looks like
the LICENSE file for the source tarball was auto-generated from
dependencies and doesn't document the difference between dependencies and
sources that are included. There is at least one library, jersey-json, th
-1 because I think I’ve found copied source code that is not documented in
the LICENSE file. I grepped for [Cc]opied and found that there are several
mustache files that were copied from openapi-generator that are not
documented in LICENSE. The openapi-generator project has an ALv2 LICENSE
file wit
I’m still -1 on this release due to licensing concerns.
The LICENSE file includes a blanket statement that there are third-party
components that are licensed under the Apache Software License 2.0, but
doesn’t list what they are. I think this needs to be specific.
The NOTICE file has a copyright n
gt; Do you maintain your -1 vote ?
>
> Thanks
> Regards
> JB
>
> Le lun. 13 janv. 2025 à 19:07, rdb...@gmail.com a
> écrit :
>
> > I’m still -1 on this release due to licensing concerns.
> >
> > The LICENSE file includes a blanket statement that there are thir
luded dependencies for instance).
> 5. This release only includes source distribution, so everything in
> LICENSE-BINARY-DIST is unrelated to the release and will be fixed with
> the first release including binary distributions (the script
> generating that should be changed but as we a
Carrying over my +1 from the dev list.
Because there is no intent to publish convenience binaries, I don't think
there are requirements for the Jars that are produced. If that
understanding is incorrect, please let me know and I'll start checking the
Jars even if they aren't going to be published.
+1
The update to DISCLAIMER and NOTICE look okay to me, although I don't think
that the Nessie NOTICE content is necessary. That information, which is
just the copyright, is already in LICENSE to document the parts that are
licensed.
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 6:58 AM Russell Spitzer
wrote:
> +1
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
