Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.0.0-rc1-incubating Candidate 3

Repeating my +1 (binding) -Taylor > On May 11, 2018, at 8:53 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: > > IPMC - please note that this vote received 3 IPMC votes from the mentors on > the dev list. > > I’ll repeat my +1 (binding) > > Regards, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Justin, I looked at the big directories that were omitted in the RAT excludes file: contrib/* and docs/*. In contrib/, I found a few files which don't have a license or have a license but not the full text: src/operator/contrib/psroi_pooling-inl.h

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Hen, Sorry I misunderstood. The doc can definitely be removed from release when doing tar.gz build. I for some reason was thinking about the release tag on github. Anirudh On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Hen wrote: > I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

I'll poke the legal-discuss thread; however why can't we have the build script for the tar.gz start by removing the .md file? On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anirudh wrote: > Hi Justin, > > We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original > repo,

Re: [VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.0.0-rc1-incubating Candidate 3

IPMC - please note that this vote received 3 IPMC votes from the mentors on the dev list. I’ll repeat my +1 (binding) Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On May 11, 2018, at 4:09 PM, Matteo Merli wrote: > > This is the third release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version >

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Justin, We cannot just remove the documentation without modifying the original repo, since it is a submodule. I have opened an issue to googletest to see if it can be relicensed: https://github.com/google/googletest/issues/1604 Is this acceptable for the release? For issue 1 and 2, is the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

Hi, I think the confusion around copyrights in NOTICE files happens because when you bundle a 3rd party ALv2 for with a minimum NOTICE file it is likely that it contains a copyright line you need to copy into your NOTICE file. But for other permissive licenses you don't do this. Thanks, Justin On

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi, My reading of that is the documentation is under a CC license and the code under a different one. That's quite common. You could just not include the documentation. Thanks, Justin On Sat., 12 May 2018, 9:48 am Anirudh, wrote: > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files aren't > > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some > > specific api or runs some script, would these be

[VOTE] Pulsar Release 2.0.0-rc1-incubating Candidate 3

This is the third release candidate for Apache Pulsar, version 2.0.0-rc1-incubating. Pulsar is a highly scalable, low latency messaging platform running on commodity hardware. It provides simple pub-sub semantics over topics, guaranteed at-least-once delivery of messages, automatic cursor

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi, > For 1 and 2, Considering that the Creative Commons License files aren't > part of the release source itself but downloaded when user calls some > specific api or runs some script, would these be blocking issues ? No but this need to explicitly pointed out to the user that they are

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi, > Just to make sure I understand: Do you want us to review rat-excludes file > to make sure we are not omitting important ? We will check the rat-excludes > file. > Also, the huge number of files(when run without rat-excludes) is because of > the third party submodules for whom the licenses

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

Hi, > My understanding is that the if the license writes that the copyright notice > needs to be retained then it needs to go into the NOTICE. But that is not > completely clear here. [2] The license file normally includes the copyright line and so it will be included in LICENSE and there is

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Justin, I have a few questions on the category b issues that you raised: 1. example/nce-loss/README.md: This script doesn't ship with CC-BY-SA and GFDL content by itself but downloads the dataset when user runs the script example/nce-loss/get_text8.sh. 2.

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Justin, Just to make sure I understand: Do you want us to review rat-excludes file to make sure we are not omitting important ? We will check the rat-excludes file. Also, the huge number of files(when run without rat-excludes) is because of the third party submodules for whom the licenses have

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

I'm fine with it then, consider my vote a +1 On Fri, May 11, 2018, 1:32 PM Dave Fisher wrote: > > > On May 11, 2018, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > > My understanding is that we have confirmed there are Cat-X files in the > > release. I

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

> On May 11, 2018, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > > My understanding is that we have confirmed there are Cat-X files in the > release. I don't believe we can approve a release going out with known > Cat-X files. > > Justin, Dave, thoughts? I'd be happy to switch my

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

Hi - > On May 11, 2018, at 4:11 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote: > > The only copyrights in LICENSE are related to BSD, W3C, and OGF > licenses. My understanding is that it is optional to add the copyrights > of these permissive licenses to the NOTICE [1]. And it's actually >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

On 10 May 2018 at 18:42, Dave Fisher wrote: > (3) Improve Rat Check. Probably by including sbt-rat in project with > addSbtPlugin("org.musigma" % "sbt-rat" % "0.5.1”) and updating > .rat-excludes. > Oh, so that's how you add excludes using rat by default. I've been

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

My understanding is that we have confirmed there are Cat-X files in the release. I don't believe we can approve a release going out with known Cat-X files. Justin, Dave, thoughts? I'd be happy to switch my vote if there's a shared understanding. John On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:11 AM Steve

REMINDER: Apache EU Roadshow 2018 schedule announced!

Hello Apache Supporters and Enthusiasts This is a reminder that the schedule for the Apache EU Roadshow 2018 in Berlin has been announced. http://apachecon.com/euroadshow18/schedule.html Please note that we will not be running an ApacheCon in Europe this year which means that this Apache EU

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

The only copyrights in LICENSE are related to BSD, W3C, and OGF licenses. My understanding is that it is optional to add the copyrights of these permissive licenses to the NOTICE [1]. And it's actually preferred to not add them so as to keep the NOTICE as small as possible. Maybe my understanding

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3

Sorry, this situation is a little confusing. The two files were originally developed by Mitre under the very restrictive Cat-X license. We requested that those files be open sourced for inclusion in the Daffodil test suite and the files went through Mitre's process for approval. None of us really

[RESULT][VOTE] Release of Apache-Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC4]

Dear IPMC Community, I am pleased to announce that the Incubator PMC has approved the release of Apache Griffin-0.2.0-incubating. The vote has passed with: 3 binding "+1" votes, and 4 non-binding "+1" votes no "0" votes no "-1" votes The votes were

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC4]

Thanks Justin, we'll fix the warnings in the later release. Thanks, Lionel On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 3:01 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > +1 binding > > I checked: > - incubating in name > - signatures and hashes correct > - LICENSE and NOTICE good > - No unexpected

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi, > I am not able to reproduce the issue you mentioned with unknown licenses. > When I try to run apache rat on the downloaded source it says 0 unknown > licenses. Does the source you are looking at include build artifacts by > chance ? No it wasn't but I was ignoring the rat exclusions.

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi Justin, Thanks a lot for the feedback! I will take a look at license issues and also publish my key to the public keyserver. I am not able to reproduce the issue you mentioned with unknown licenses. When I try to run apache rat on the downloaded source it says 0 unknown licenses. Does the

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.2.0 release RC2

Hi, Sorry but it’s -1 binding as issues raised last incubator vote haven’t been fixed and the source release include Category B content. [2] I checked: - incubating in name - DISCLAIMER exists - In LICENSE if you link to the license eg "For details, see, 3rdparty/googletest/googletest/LICENSE”

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Omid 0.9.0.0 (incubating)

Hi, > Could you please review the notice file in OMID-44 > before I'll cook a new > release candidate? I’ve taken a look at NOTICE file now looks good. However where did those yahoo files come from? If it was from here [3] then you need to add

Re: [VOTE] Apache Crail 1.0-incubating (RC2)

Hi, -1 (binding) as missing DISCLAIMER and NOTICE is incorrect I checked: - incubating in name - DISCLAIMER is missing - NOTICE is not correct (see below) - LICENSE is fine - no binary files in release - all source files have asf headers The notice fine has two conflicting copyright with

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Griffin-0.2.0-incubating [RC4]

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes correct - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binaries - All source files has headers - Can compile from source I did notice a couple of warnings while compiling: [WARNING] npm WARN deprecated ng2-bootstrap@1.6.3: