Re: [VOTE] Release: Apache Eagle 0.4.0-incubating

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - artefact name contains incubating - hashes and signature good - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE good - Most source file have apache headers - No unexpected binaries in source release - Can compile from source Minor issue you (IMO) should fix in the next releas

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi, -1 binding, missing DISCLAIMER and LICENSE and header issues I checked: - artefact names contain incubating - hashes and signature good - DISCLAIMER file is missing - LICENSE contains things that are not bundled and missing things that are (see below). It also contains paths to files that do

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi, > 1. A tie (and if the voting period will be extended when a tie occurs) Would not pass. For a release you need at least 3 +1 binding votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. [1] > .2. Less than the required number of votes (+3 and how this will extend the > voting period) The vote lasts un

Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC3

Hi, Thanks Ted for a friendly explanation of all that. > Typically what happens in a smooth functioning project is that if somebody > points out a heinous problem (forgot to include the source code in a source > release, say), everybody (or nearly everybody) who previously voted +1 will > immedia

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pony Mail (Incubating) 0.9.RC2 as 0.9

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name continues incubating - good signature and hashes - LICENSE is missing a couple of things (see below) - NOTICE is possibly missing NOTICE file from quokka? [2][3] - Source files have ASF header - No unexpected binary files in release - No need to compile LICENSE i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Pony Mail (Incubating) 0.9.RC2 as 0.9

Hi, > Looks like they're using the hosted version in the site: > https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.11.3/jquery.min.js If it not bundled then there's no need to mention it in LICENSE. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe

Re: [VOTE] Apache Sirona 0.4-incubating

Hi, -1 binding due to LICENSE and NOTICE issues and missing DISCLAIMER files I checked: - artefact names contain incubating - signatures and hashes good - source DISCLAIMER exists - source LICENSE is missing many things. Note that the full text of the license needs to be included in some cases (

Re: [VOTE] Apache Sirona 0.4-incubating

Hi, > can you confirm which artifacts are missing it please? All of them. Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache Sirona 0.4-incubating

Hi, > » unzip -p > /cygdrive/c/Users/romain/.m2/repository/org/apache/sirona/sirona-reporting-ui/0.4-incubating/sirona-reporting-ui-0.4-incubating.war > META-INF/NOTICE | egrep -i 'flot|boot’ Why are you searching NOTICE for “flat” or “boot”? They should not be in NOTICE but mentioned in LICENSE

Re: [VOTE] Apache DataFu 1.3.1 release RC1

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - release contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE OK - Most files has ASF headers - No unexpected binaries in release - Can compile from source Minor issues: - year is wrong in NOTICE file - year range in site footed d

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC4 as 0.8.1

Hi, Looks much better than the last release candidate, however still +0 (binding) due to LICENSE issues, the items brought up for the last RC have not been addressed and possible GPL dependancies. All like like there may be license dependancy issues, but I’m not familiar enough with sbt and th

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC4 as 0.8.1

Hi, > [Kam] This analyzes jars required to build the binary artifacts - so my > assumption is that it is not relevant to release just the source? Apache project cannot have GPL dependancies [1][5][6] (there are however a few exceptions for optional parts[2] and some build tools [3]). I’d first

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release (BSD with ad clause). This is not a simple release to check and I may

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > Do you mean this should be put in VOTE email? I expected it in BUILD_INSTRUCTIONS.md but it just contains a link to the wiki page, but anywhere in the release is fine. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsu

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c > > >was not referred in your previous email anywhere. But given the > context, I think it fits in your comments about [28]-[33

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > However, do you think that'd be a release blocker if we just have a link > not full content in the source tarsal? No it’s a very minor issue. I listed what I considered release blockers in my vote email next to the -1 vote. Thanks, Justin --

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Mnemonic-0.2.0-incubating [rc3]

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - release contains incubating - signature and hash good - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No binaries in source - All files have ASF headers - Could compile from source but some minor issues (on OSX) I think the README could do with some clearer information on how to compil

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, > Staging repo: > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1003 > Source (official release artifact): > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachefluo-1003/org/apache/fluo/fluo-parent/1-incubating/fluo-parent-1-incubating-source-release.tar.gz I’m a l

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, Also you seem to non approved releases [1] on your Apache website [2] please remove these or make it clear that these are not Apache releases (which I assume is the case). Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what 2. https://fluo.apache.org/docs/ ---

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, > It's not released yet. It was my understanding that we don't put stuff > there until the vote actually passes a vote for a release, and for that we > need the IPMC to vote after the PPMC votes You put stuff into the dev area after a release has been approved but before that it needs to go

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - release name includes incubating - signature and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE correct. Although you might want to add “(incubating)” after the project name in NOTICE. - No source files to check for Apache headers - No binary files in release

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, Looking a bit further the the Apache Fluo web site I see a couple of concerning things, but presumably this is part of a ongoing effort and will be sorted out before graduation: - It seems the main source of distribution is github [1][2] and Sonatype [2] not the Apache mirrors. - There are

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, > I know you voted +1, so I think you're okay with it as-is this time around. > Is this correct? Yep, it only a minor thing. > I'm still a little confused about the location to place the files > pre-release for voting. Should I understand that there is an "official" > staging area to use fo

Re: [VOTE] Fluo Parent POM 1-incubating (rc2)

Hi, > The question of trademarks and groupIds has come up before ( > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/24c6270458faf64da351027cde5c74e935d6b5760b511b4e2f0c6b98@1388455319@%3Cprivate.accumulo.apache.org%3E), > but in those circumstances, the conflict was much more direct (reuse of the > "org.apa

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Beam, version 0.2.0-incubating

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - file name contains incubating - signature and hash good - LICENSE and NOTICE good. (Although not 100% sure why the NOTICE mentions google twice) - No binary files in release - All source code has ASF headers - Can compile from source Just a few minor things I notic

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

Hi, > The voting period ends in about 9 hours. There is no end to a voting period it usually form a minimum of 72 hours if you can call a result. A vote can (and sometime does take longer). Im just looking at it now and will vote shortly. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC5 as 0.8.1 Release

Hi, +1 binding. Nice work on the LICENSE/NOTICE files. I checked that the “GPL" dependancy issue isn’t one as it dual licensed under GPL/CDDL. I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures and hashed good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have ASF headers - No

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo parent POM 1 and Build Resources 1.0.0

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in release name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE fine - No binaries in the release - can compile from source Only one small niggle is that "build-resources-1.0.0-incubating” (one of the two artefacts in the release) seems an unusual name for an apa

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark > the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir > enough. Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? That way the licensing of any file would be clear and anyone editing those feel in the

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, >> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something >> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear? Does the files version control history tell you anything? I know i

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of > Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified > upstream code that Kudu > settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z And the result of that is that it almost impossible to review an

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > Well, I don't think there's ever a 100% assurance in IP matters, > but... here's what > we know AND here's what we would like to advertise to the consumers of HAWQ: > A certain set of file (how we advertise the filenames is TBD, but > likely in LICENSE)... > 1. ...came from PostgreSQL proj

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the > headers is not an option. Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they were originally under? Thanks, Justin - To unsubsc

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the > current stated policy > on unmodified 3d party: >http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party Why exactly is that against policy? You are adding a header to make clear what the license of that file is. That not

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the > policy, the answer is simple. > Quote: >"3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of > third-party source files.” In the case when they are not actually ALv2 licensed. It assumed that any files t

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, > Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT > source code. That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software? > That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header > there on my own.

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, One of my concerns was that the code may be a port of something under a different license (given the directory naming). For example there’s QNX FS code in Linux which is GPL licensed. [3] (date seem to be about 2.2) However I think it may be a port to get the software to run on QNX4 and wri

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M3 release

Hi, +1 binding For the source release I checked: - names contain incubating - signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE has a few minor issues (see below) - NOTICE is good - all files have apache headers (where needed) - no unexpected binary files in release - can compile from source I didn’

Re: [VOTE] Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M3 release

Hi, > Hope that's ok, if not please let us know how we should proceed. Seems fine to me. Policy is not to include copyright line in ASF headers at Apache but if 3rd parties do so I guess we need to respect that. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.6.1 (incubating) - rc2

Hi, I know the result being called, but would you mind fixing up the NOTICE before the next release. There's no need to normally list Apache v2 license in the NOTICE file unless they have a NOTICE file. [1] I believe this has been brought up before. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, -1 binding until issues below discussed / resolved. I assume it’s probably OK and just left over headers from the software grant and a couple of extra Apache header that were added where they probably shouldn’t be. I checked: - incubating in name - signature and hash good - NOTICE good - LI

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, > regarding the binary file (part-0*.carbondata), it's used only for the test. > I proposed to improve this by generating the file during the test instead. Sounds good. > For the headers, good catch, rat checked if the header is there but not the > actual header. No need to cancel given t

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, Changing my vote to +1 as the issue will be fixed next release and are more documentation issues than licensing issues. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional command

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.0-incubating release

Hi, > - check with the team about the origin of some code (and eventually update > the NOTICE) There’s probably no need to add anything to NOTICE as openCSV doesn’t have a NOTICE file. [1][2] Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep 2. https://sourceforge.net/

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi, > I think what we have to do is listing Copyrights and Licenses in NOTICE file > as seen in > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE#L86 > > Is my understanding right? No, that notice file is IMO a poor example to copy from. MIT and BSD licenses need to be mentioned in LICENSE n

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, -1 binding, willing to change my vote if encryption code issue clarified. > The artifacts can be downloaded here: https://repository.apache.org/content/ > repositories/orgapachepirk-1002 Please place the artefacts in the correct place [1] That that releases MUST be placed in the list area a

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi, > Sure. I'll list all copyrights and licenses in NOTICE file and LICENSE > file respectively, following the way in > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE#L86 > https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/LICENSE#L232 Again this can be sorted out during incubation, but I would no

Re: [DISCUSS] Hivemall Incubation Proposal

Hi, > BTW, do you have in mind any good example/project following the > current ASF policy? I’d just follow this [1] Here’s a fictional project I've put together that may also help. [2][3] If you need help just ask your mentors or on the incubator list for help. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.a

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, > Thanks Justin. I have just updated the ASF Export Classification page > to add product name "Apache Pirk" under the Apache Incubator project. > > We will co-ordinate the sending of the notice to US Govt., and updating > the readme via Pirk's dev list. Thanks for that. Justin ---

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name included incubating - signature and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary files in release - Can compile from source I noticed you’ve dropped “apache” from the release artefact names, IMO it’s good to keep it for brandi

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, > In terms of the README mentioning bundled cryptogrphic code, it says that > "Apache Pirk implements cryptographic software..." -- the Paillier class is > one such implementation. I don’t think anything is required just that it could be made a bit clearer. Thanks, Justin --

Re: What goes in the NOTICES file?

Hi, > I assume you've seen this: > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice See also [1] for what else need to go in license, the text about category b [2] and how to handle 3rd party headers [3]. [4] is important if you are bundling Apache v2 code. Thanks, Justin 1. http://

Re: What goes in the NOTICES file?

Hi, > I've seen Justin's video, but would be great to also have it written down. The video [1] has closed captions if that helps. The steps to produce that LICENSE and NOTICE are written down here [2] The github history may also be of help as it shows each change via a single checkin. Also pull

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.0.0 (RC2)

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - hashes and signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source file have Apache headers - No unexpected binary headers - Can compile from source Your build instructions [1] may need some updating I found openblas path to be “lib” not “library

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.0.0 (RC2)

Hi, > If there are any errors due to glog missing, please let us know. There are and I needed to install it in order to get the source package to compile, was testing on OSX if that helps. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mai

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.0.0 (RC2)

Hi, It was when running cmake. I’m unfamiliar with your project and could of made a mistake but a "brew install -vd blog lmdv” seemed to fixed the issue and I was able to compile. >cmake .. -- proto libs optimized/usr/local/lib/libprotobuf.dylibdebug/usr/local/lib/libprotobuf.dylib -- Could NO

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, I’m also having trouble reviewing this release. For instance these files have changed since the 1.9 release but don’t have headers. Are they BSD or Apache licensed? incubator-madlib-1.9.1/deploy/postflight.sh incubator-madlib-1.9.1/doc/etc/madlib_extra.css incubator-madlib-1.9.1/methods/arra

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, > The MADlib community is unclear on how to deal with the dual license. Well that makes two off us. :-) > Till now we've treated all *new* files (i.e. files that were created > after joining Apache) as Apache license with required headers and all > old files under the BSD. I can see several

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, +1 binding I assume the header/licensing situation will be sorted out before graduation. I checked: - artefact contains incubating - signatures and hashes correct - LICENSE good - although short form (pointer to license text is preferred). - NOTICE ok - Not sure if all files have correct hea

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Tephra-0.9.0-incubating [rc1]

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - file name include incubating - signature and hash correct - LICENSE has minor issue - NOTICE is good - no unexpected binaries in file - all source files has ASF header - can compile from source LICENSE is missing appendix please fix for next release. Thanks, Justin

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

Hi, > E.g., no forums in Apache, for example. A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of several projects who do that. Thanks, Justin 1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html - To

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary in source - Looks like most if not all files have incorrect ASF headers. The ASF header should not include a copyright line [2]. Not that it matters

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, +0 until IBM copyright question sorted. Happy to change to +1 if there’s a good reason for it. I’d guess that the code come from them in a software grant and the copyright has just been forgotten to be removed and IBM added to the NOTICE file? I checked: - inculcating in name - signature a

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, > No, we didn't get an official grant, but the RI is ALv2 and we actively asked > the IBM devs/managers and they are perfectly fine with it. They even give > feedback on JIRA and contributed patches later on. > > We are actively working together so to say. > But by not having a grant we ca

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, > Comes from OpenEJB for cli - thought it was ok to rely on transitive > dependencies there - and for the maven plugin it is JUNG (BSD) so think it > is ok, did I miss one? I think so but it not clear to me when those LICENSES end up. MPL and CDDL (known at category B) are not OK in source

Re: [VOTE] Apache BatchEE 0.4-incubating

Hi, > yes there https://github.com/WASdev/standards.jsr352.jbatch . I think we > are good - at least we were when imported the code. Yuck a malformed NOTICE that looks to include things that are most likley not bundled and lists ALv2 things. You may want to help them out with that. But there’s

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

Hi, > I think we forget to close the vote and announce the results. Apologies for > that. As far as I could tell I think you only had 2 +1 binding votes before I voted so I’m not sure the vote was closed. Please take more care in future and please send a RESULT email on this vote. Thanks, Jus

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC4

Hi, Just doing review and is the doc directory meant to be included in the source release? I’m seeing a number of pieces of 3rd party licensed code bundled in there that’s not mentioned in LICENSE. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscri

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC4

Hi, Sorry -1 binding as the release is likely to contain photographs we don’t have permission to distribute. Happy to change my vote to +1 if it’s shown we do have permission to do so. Most of the other issues are minor (for a first release) and could be fixed next release if the above is not

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC4

Hi, > Meanwhile, if we want to fix it by unbundling the photos (which are > jCarousel examples that do not affect its functionality), do we need to go > through another round of PredictionIO voting before coming back to IPMC? Yes that is needed, but given the changes are minimal it should be easy

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

Hi, I notice the ant repo contains other 3rd party code. I assume this is not going to part of the software grant? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Streams version 0.3-incubating

Hi, Please place the artefacts to vote on here [1]. I checked (all 3 source packages): - name include incubating - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMERS exists - all LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binary files - All source files have Apache headers - Can compile from source Thanks

Re: [VOTE] Apache Unomi 1.1.0-incubating release

Hi, -1 binding as it look like the source release has a dependancy on LGPL software. It may be that this is not actually a dependancy, and just an issue with the binary NOTICE file - but either way it should be fixed. Everything else looks good however. In the binary NOTICE you have: "This

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

Hi, > AFAIK, the incoming ant repo is covered by the Sonatype software grant: what > precise 3rd party code are you concerned about? From a quick look there BSD and code copyright copyright various other people [1] Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights Copyright (c) 2

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Hi, +1 binding (only just). There are several minor issue please fix for next release. Please place build instruction and supported platforms in the README. The wiki may change over time and that may make it difficult to build older versions. I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Hi, > The git tag: > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-impala.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/2.7.0-rc3 Also please include the git hash in the VOTE email. Git tags change be changed. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-m

Re: How to denote unusual copyright circumstances, was Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.7.0 release candidate 3

Hi, > This (an another couple of things in your review) might stay the same > in the next release, but be allowed (as I read it) under the licensing > rules. As long as it not compile source files it should be fine. It's not not binary files i.e. jpg and pngs and the like are ok. What does conta

Re: [VOTE] Apache Unomi 1.1.0-incubating release (take 2)

Hi, +1 binding Checked for the source release: - name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE good - NOTICE stills contains unneeded info re MIT licensed code [1]. While this is a minor documentation issue please remove in the next release. Notice files sh

Re: [VOTE] HTrace 4.2-incubating release

Hi, +0 binding as I had issues compiling (see below). Happy to change to +1 if I can compile everything else is good. I checked: - incubating in name - signature and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE is missing MIT licensed normalise.css bundled in several bootstrap files. e.g. [2]. Ple

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo 1.0.0-incubating (rc2)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have ASF headers - No unexpected binaries in source - Can compile from source Convenience binary also looks good. You may want to consider adding

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Aether, renamed to Maven Artifact Resolver

Hi, > it's about dependencies > https://github.com/eclipse/aether-ant/blob/master/src/main/resources/about.html > not about source code > > not an issue Fine by me - tanks for explaining. +1 Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name includes incubating - signatures and hashed are good - LICENSE is missing a licence (see below) - NOTICE is good - A file are missing apache headers [4], all others are good - No unexpected binary files in release - Can compile from source This file [1] incorre

Re: [VOTE] Apache Pirk 0.2.0-incubating Release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name including incubating - signature and hashed good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - Files have Apache header except this file [1]. Please fix in the next release. - No unexpected binary files in source release - Can compile from source Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache CarbonData 0.1.1-incubating release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name includes incubating - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binaries in source - A source file is missing a header [1] please fix for next release. I assume this is Apache licensed? - Can compile from source Thanks, Justin 1. /core/src/mai

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PredictionIO 0.10.0 (incubating) RC5

Hi, +1 binding I checked, - incubating in name - signatures and hashes correct - LICENSE and NOTICE is fine - No unexpected binaries - All source files have ASF headers (although there are a large number of file that could possible have headers that don’t). - Can compile from source Very minor

Re: [VOTE] Apache S2Graph(incubating) 0.1.0 release RC6

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - DISCLAIMER exists - all source code has Apache headers - no binary files in release - can compile from source Good to see simple build instructions in the README. A nice simple releas

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Juneau 6.0.0-incubating-RC3

Hi, +1 binding, but there's a few things that need fixing for the next release. Missing source release at [1] and this source release(?) at [2] contains jars not source. So assuming [3] is the source release - can you confirm this please. I checked: - name contains incubating - hashes good, sig

Re: [VOTE] Apache S2Graph(incubating) 0.1.0 release RC6

Hi, > Since there wasn't sufficient votes, I am asking if it is possible to > extend vote period for another 72 hours or until we get sufficient > votes(correct me if there is other proper way to extend vote). The voting period should be minimum of 72 hours or until you get enough votes so there

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Juneau 6.0.0-incubating-RC3

Hi, > Does anyone else want to check the project before I cancel this vote? IMO no need to cancel as the issues are minor, you just need a couple of more people voting. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr.

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Mnemonic-0.3.0-incubating [rc4]

Hi, A bit late as the result has been called but as I was 1/2 way through the review I thought I’d finish it. Everything looks good. In future it would be nice to indicate how many binding IPMC votes you had in the vote email. I checked - name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Fineract 0.4.0 (incubating)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name includes incubating - hashes and signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good (nice work there!) - No unexpected binary files - all source file have ASF headers - can compile from source Thanks, Justin ---

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - files name contain incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - NOTICE and LICENSE have some very minor issues (see below) - No unexpected binary files - All Apache files have ASF headers - Can compile from source Minor license issues: - How is this

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating

Hi, > Much of the text in the NOTICE is propagated from Apache Lucene > (https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/blob/master/lucene/NOTICE.txt). > You may want to consider only including the bits that are needed as to reduce t

Re: [VOTE] Apache Fluo Recipes 1.0.0-incubating (rc1)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures and hashes correct - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - No binaries in source release - All source files have headers - Can compile from source You may want to consider signing the artefacts with an apache.org email

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.10 RC3

Hi, +1 (binding). Sorry for being a little late in reviewing. I checked: - artefact name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have ASF headers - No unexpected binary files in source release - Can compile from source You

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.10 RC3

Hi, > I've seen others do a thing that adds a new email address to an existing PGP > identity. Would that be included in what you are recommending? Yes, looks like we need to add some instructions here. [1] Thanks, Justin 1. https://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html --

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.11.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, > The release artifacts can be found at : > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0. > 11.0-incubating-rc4/ It not clear to me what exactly is the release artefacts here, for instance why does this directory include jars? Can you please clarify. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, -1 binding due to incompatible license dependancy. Happy to change my vote if this is shown to not be the case. Everything checks out expect the dependancy of Amazon licensed software which is category X [1] this (closed) JIRA covers it [2] Note that it not enough just to not included the

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.11.0-incubating (RC4)

Hi, -1 binding due to LICENSE and NOTICE issues and including binary files in the source release. This was brought up last release and looks like it hasn't been corrected? For [1] - LICENSE and NOTICE are incorrect as they do not mention any of the bundled software - includes unexpected binary

Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating

Hi, > We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list. Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main point. Yes you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t have it as a dependancy either unless it’s optional. > The dependency is not embedded

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >