Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi, > It a bit hidden but documented here [1] it more one of those assumed > knowledge things. It certainly help people to know how those jars are > licensed. The review of your binary release would of taken 1/2 the amount > time if all of the jar contained their license (and notice) files.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi, > I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that > these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing > the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the > NetBeans build system produces. It a bit hidden but documented here

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Thanks a lot for a thorough review! Will take some time to go through that and fix, but a few questions: On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of > missed something. A number of

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi, I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of missed something. A number of issues here are due to upstream projects putting too much in NOTICE or not including a NOTICE file in the jar :-( But it also looked like you missing a couple of things from LICENSE as well

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As > > far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it. > > (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi, > One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As > far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it. > (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is mostly > based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

Please consider this VOTE canceled while we work on the issues raised on this vote thread. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Luciano Resende wrote: > Please vote to approve the release of Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating > (RC3). > > The podling dev vote thread: >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

Hi, > Thanks for checking Justin, Toree internally needs to interpret Scala code > and be able to add external jars as dependencies and these three jars are > mainly used for testing purposes and they are also cleared labeled as a > test and placed as test resources. Having said that, this seems

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

Hi, > I'm not sure there's a strong case to build these Jars just before using > them in tests. That would require much more time and maintenance than just > including the binaries. There's nothing special about them besides that > they have classes that can be loaded to verify the classpath

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > -1 (binding) as there is compiled source in the release > > I checked: > - incubating in name > - signatures and hashes correct > - disclaimer exists > - LICENSE is good > - NOTICE needs year updating > -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating (RC3)

Justin, A bit more context on those Jars: these were created to test the ability to add jars at runtime to the Scala interpreter, and they were contributed to the project as tests. I'm not sure there's a strong case to build these Jars just before using them in tests. That would require much

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have >> taken everything everyone has said and

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (Incubating)

On 01/22/2018 10:01 AM, sebb wrote: On 22 January 2018 at 14:48, Hank Beatty wrote: The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating). More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (Incubating)

On 22 January 2018 at 14:48, Hank Beatty wrote: > The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache > Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating). > > More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at: > > http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/

[ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (Incubating)

The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating). More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at: http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/ The release artifacts can be downloaded here:

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jaroslav Tulach wrote: > I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion > aside... > > > ... > > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data > for > > > which the addition of a

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion aside... > ... > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data for > which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail." The > problem looking at this statement vs the file

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:03 AM Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be > > > Apache > > > > license > > > > >

[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.1.0-RC3

Thanks to all who voted! The release has PASSED with the following IPMC votes: +1 Phil Sorber (binding) +1 Justin Mclean (binding) +1 Leif Hedstrom (binding) I will proceed to publish the release and send ANNOUNCE. On behalf of the Apache Traffic Control podling, thank you! Regards, Hank

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be > > Apache > > > license > > > > > > > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking > > about files like

Re: License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament wrote: > > > > > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be > > Apache > > > license > > > > > > > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking > > about files like these

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On 2018-01-22 12:36, John D. Ament wrote: I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well.. I want confirm that the list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog. To me, the minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is: - Remove the binary zip files from

License headers on test data (was Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2)

> > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be > Apache > > license > > > > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but > they actually are all the same: test

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote: > > > Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga: > >> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions >> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC >> members

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have > > taken everything everyone has said

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:51 AM Bertrand Delacretaz < bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote: > Hi John, > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > ...Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be > Apache > > license > > - Specific

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi John, On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > ...Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache > license > - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from > other locations... If NetBeans moves their

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga: I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have > taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very > seriously. > > It is for that very reason that,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of > whether > > RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you > > can't release even. > > There is some cases where

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Geertjan Wielenga wrote: > ...Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in > their take on your review too My take is, as you suggest, that people from NetBeans convert Justin's concerns into jira

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very seriously. It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi, > No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether > RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you > can't release even. There is some cases where this is allowed. I know of at least one project who got approval from VP legal to make a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Hi, > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC > members evaluating a release. Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things. I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

I appreciate your response and it is very clear that I am not making that argument at all. And no it does not suck at all to do due diligence — that is whh we are here: we want a product with healthy IP. And we appreciate Justin’s thorough IP review, a lot. However, I would like it to be affirmed

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early releases from a new podling. The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have to wade through a bunch of warnings that you

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache NetBeans 9.0 Beta (incubating) rc2

I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted with a