[VOTE] Release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) 0.5.0-incubating RC0
Hello Incubator Community, This is a call for a vote to release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) version 0.5.0-incubating RC0 The Apache TubeMQ community has voted on and approved a proposal to release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) version 0.5.0-incubating RC0 We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this incubator release. TubeMQ community vote thread: • https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbc5807429f0614e9130fc98dffb84521270b43e995d7f623ff9d31df%40%3Cdev.tubemq.apache.org%3E Vote result thread: • https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc6ec5b024bd15fbe766c610121fcc0c0b2ce139e2dd1cbf7c76e3eea%40%3Cdev.tubemq.apache.org%3E The release candidate: • https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tubemq/0.5.0-incubating-RC0/ Git tag for the release: • https://github.com/apache/incubator-tubemq/tree/0.5.0-incubating-RC0 Release notes: • https://github.com/apache/incubator-tubemq/releases/tag/0.5.0-incubating-RC0 The artifacts signed with PGP key 6011859AEFC308DD, corresponding to gosonzh...@apache.org, that can be found in keys file: • https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tubemq/KEYS The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until a necessary number of votes are reached. Please vote accordingly: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason Thanks, On behalf of Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) community
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1
Hi Justin, > It’s not seperate as you release candidates being distributed to users. I still want to know why release candidates are being released in this way, in particular by companies where there are MXnet PPMC members. What steps will the PPMC will take to stop this from happening in the future? Again, we are NOT releasing release candidates. DJL is not MXNet, and it does not represent MXNet. Even though it's from my day job employer and I'm a PPMC member, whoever took the action doesn't represent me or the PPMC. I also want to know why it was released like that. Here are the steps I'm taking on behalf of the PPMC on this: - As DJL was developed by a separate team as a separate project, I first reached out to them through an internal channel and clarified the requirement for using the name mxnet in their releases. Either they or I will provide an update on the resolution. - We will include a branding and trademark usage guideline page on mxnet website. - We will conduct a review of trademark usage as part of our board reporting process. Feel free to advise appropriate additional steps. > Here’s another branding/trademark issue [8] and anther [9] and another [10]. If I search for "MXNet" here [11] I get 30 hits and some issues. I believe your project has PPMC members from the companies listed here? Yes, there are PPMC members that are employed by this company, including me. I'm starting a thread with the PPMC on the project private list for resolving the issues on the marketplace website. Bear in mind that any entity can list items on such a site, and they do not represent either the PPMC or the company that runs it, just like google search results don't represent the google employees. > I’m on OSX and don’t have gcc set up correctly, clang fails to compile as it encounters an unknown option. So it’s probably just my setup, however I’m not even sure of OSX is a supported platform. OSX compilation config and steps can be found in https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.x/config/darwin.cmake#L18-L34. We are improving our installation guide to make it easier to discover. Regards, Sheng On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:19 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > It seems that most of the concerns are branding/trademark/legal issues > from those third-party projects which relies on MXNet and the AWS > marketplace (or MXNet's downstream projects), which could be tracked > separately and improved continually to 100% meet the requirement of > incubating Apache project, so probably not affect this source release and > can be addressed later. > > It’s not seperate as you release candidates being distributed to users. I > still want to know why release candidates are being released in this way, > in particular by companies where there are MXnet PPMC members. What steps > will the PPMC will take to stop this from happening in the future? > > > For mshadow, I'm wondering if completing the IP clearance process is the > only mandatory requirement for this source code release, then we might need > to hold on the current release process until it's finished > > It will need to be completed before this can be released. > > Thanks, > Justin > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1
Hi Justin, Thanks for your valuable inputs, then I will hold on the current rc1 release and continue the rest of release process (vote on general) when the issues are addressed. Thanks, Ciyong -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:18 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1 Hi, > It seems that most of the concerns are branding/trademark/legal issues from > those third-party projects which relies on MXNet and the AWS marketplace (or > MXNet's downstream projects), which could be tracked separately and improved > continually to 100% meet the requirement of incubating Apache project, so > probably not affect this source release and can be addressed later. It’s not seperate as you release candidates being distributed to users. I still want to know why release candidates are being released in this way, in particular by companies where there are MXnet PPMC members. What steps will the PPMC will take to stop this from happening in the future? > For mshadow, I'm wondering if completing the IP clearance process is the only > mandatory requirement for this source code release, then we might need to > hold on the current release process until it's finished It will need to be completed before this can be released. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1
Hi, > It seems that most of the concerns are branding/trademark/legal issues from > those third-party projects which relies on MXNet and the AWS marketplace (or > MXNet's downstream projects), which could be tracked separately and improved > continually to 100% meet the requirement of incubating Apache project, so > probably not affect this source release and can be addressed later. It’s not seperate as you release candidates being distributed to users. I still want to know why release candidates are being released in this way, in particular by companies where there are MXnet PPMC members. What steps will the PPMC will take to stop this from happening in the future? > For mshadow, I'm wondering if completing the IP clearance process is the only > mandatory requirement for this source code release, then we might need to > hold on the current release process until it's finished It will need to be completed before this can be released. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1
Hi Justin, Thanks for your time to review and vote on this release. It seems that most of the concerns are branding/trademark/legal issues from those third-party projects which relies on MXNet and the AWS marketplace (or MXNet's downstream projects), which could be tracked separately and improved continually to 100% meet the requirement of incubating Apache project, so probably not affect this source release and can be addressed later. For mshadow, I'm wondering if completing the IP clearance process is the only mandatory requirement for this source code release, then we might need to hold on the current release process until it's finished, or we can address all these concerns step by step as the MXNet project evolving and move forward with the current release? Thanks! Regards, Ciyong -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 1:35 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.7.0.rc1 Hi, > For mshadow, it is a third-party component that MXNet has been relying > on since the initial contribution to MXNet. It has been included in > previous releases since its category-A license allows us to do so. For > this release, we are still releasing it as a third-party module, as > evidenced by the content of our LICENSE file [1]. The code has been donated via a software grant [1] and the IP clearance process not followed. [2] You'll note it states here [3] "No releases are possible until the provenance of all the code to be release has been clearly established and the relevant paperwork filed with Apache.” and "The Incubator PMC must approve the clearance." > For 2-5, DJL is a third-party project that depends on MXNet, not a > component of MXNet. We PPMC don't own or manage those artifacts. Why are they distributing release candidates? This seems highly unusual. Are any members of the PPMC members are involved in this? I believe some of them are employed by this company. > Finally, it would be great if you could help clarify what compilation > problem you had. I’m on OSX and don’t have gcc set up correctly, clang fails to compile as it encounters an unknown option. So it’s probably just my setup, however I’m not even sure of OSX is a supported platform. The PPMC needs to be more active in sorting out its branding and trademark issues. [6] [7] Here’s another branding/trademark issue [8] and anther [9] and another [10]. If I search for "MXNet" here [11] I get 30 hits and some issues. I believe your project has PPMC members from the companies listed here? It needs to be 100% clear in all cases where this occurs that MXNet is an incubating Apache project and those releases are not Apache ones and in some case not under the Apache license. These 3rd party releases can’t be called MXNet [4] if there is any category X code inside them or they have licensing conditions that are not compatible with the Apache license. They they can only be called NXNet if they are based on released code, with nothing else added. [5] Thanks, Justin 1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd9ff74896d1faca59b74ad45748bcfd417bec73de5ce43e57bd9dc98%40%3Cprivate.mxnet.apache.org%3E 2. https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/ 3. https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html 4. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/faq/#products 5. http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#compiled-packages 6. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility 7. https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/responsibility#independent 8. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/NVIDIA-MXNet-by-NVIDIA/B07KLFW54D 9. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-yex2xx5kgdhea?qid=1595741035764=0-1_=srh_res_product_title 10. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B07YW8HVLD?qid=1595741035764=0-4_=srh_res_product_title 11. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/search/results?x=0=0=%22MXNet - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Comment Edited] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17165145#comment-17165145 ] Justin Mclean edited comment on INCUBATOR-253 at 7/26/20, 12:40 PM: It also seems that this code may have been released before the PPMC/IPMC vote is over see [1][2][3][4] There are also branding and trademark issue with this site [5] This is in addition to the issues previously noted with releases, branding and trademarks.[6] Thanks, Justin There seems to be more release, branding and trademark issues here: 15. https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/ 16. https://repo.gradle.org/gradle/simple/repo/ai/djl/mxnet/mxnet-native-mkl/1.7.0-b/ 17. https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/ai.djl.mxnet 18. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0=nd=mxnet=v=d=50_Search=Go 19. https://djl.ai was (Author: jmclean): It also seems that this code may have been released before the PPMC/IPMC vote is over see [1][2][3][4] There are also branding and trademark issue with this site [5] This is in addition to the issues previously noted with releases, branding and trademarks.[6] Thanks, Justin There seem to be more release, branding and trademark issues here: 15. https://sourceforge.net/projects/apache-mxnet.mirror/ 16. https://repo.gradle.org/gradle/simple/repo/ai/djl/mxnet/mxnet-native-mkl/1.7.0-b/ 17. https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/ai.djl.mxnet 18. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0=nd=mxnet=v=d=50_Search=Go 19. https://djl.ai > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
[jira] [Commented] (INCUBATOR-253) Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17165206#comment-17165206 ] Justin Mclean commented on INCUBATOR-253: - Other branding/trademark issues: 20. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/NVIDIA-MXNet-by-NVIDIA/B07KLFW54D 21. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/prodview-yex2xx5kgdhea?qid=1595741035764=0-1_=srh_res_product_title 22. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B07YW8HVLD?qid=1595741035764=0-4_=srh_res_product_title 23. https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/search/results?x=0=0=%22MXNet > Issues with MXNet releases and their distribution > - > > Key: INCUBATOR-253 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INCUBATOR-253 > Project: Incubator > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Justin Mclean >Assignee: Justin Mclean >Priority: Major > > The main issues are: > 1. Source and convenance binary releases containing Category X licensed code. > 2. Website giving access to downloads of non released/unapproved code. > 3. Website giving access to releases containing Category X licensed code. > 4. Web site doesn't given enough warning to users of the issues with non > (P)PMC releases or making it clear that these are not ASF releases. > 5. Maven releases containing Category X licensed code. > 6. PiPy releases containing Category X licensed code. > 7. Docker releases containing Category X licensed code. > 8 Docker releases containing unreleased/unapproved code. > 9. Trademark and branding issues with PiPy and Docker releases. > 10. Trademark and brand issues with naming of releases. > 11. Developer releases available to users and public searchable > https://repo.mxnet.io / https://dist.mxnet.io > 12. Releases and other nightly builds on https://repo.mxnet.io / > https://dist.mxnet.io containing category X licensed code. > 13. Lack of clarity on all platforms for what is an ASF release and what is > not. > 14. Branding and release of 3rd parties containing unreleased code. (e.g. > https://docs.nvidia.com/deeplearning/frameworks/mxnet-release-notes/rel_20-03.html) > For PiPy see: > https://pypi.org/project/mxnet/ > For Docker see: > https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet > For web site pages see: > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started? > https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started/download > I may of missed something, if so please add it. -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache brpc(incubating) 0.9.8-rc01
OK， I will rename the release binary and carry on the vote. Yes, there are still some license issues remain, so we keep a DISCLAIMER-WIP still. We plan to fix it in Q3 release. Thanks 在 2020/7/22 下午2:25，“Justin Mclean” 写入: Hi, -1 (binding) as incubating is not in the name. I suggest you rename and carry on the vote. If you do that treat my vote as +1 (binding). I checked: - incubating in not in name - signatures and hashes are fine - DISCLAIMER exists (WIP) - LICENSE and NOTICE need more work - didn’t compile from source. I did also note CDDL licensed code in the release that we needs to be removed.This issue and others that have brought up in previous releases also haven’t been fixed, when is the PPMC intending to fix these? I number of files seem to have confused licensed e.g this file has 3 license headers which is the correct license? [1] Thanks, Justin 1. ./src/brpc/ts.cpp - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
