Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Hi, > The only new files are build related cmake or yaml files. That's probably OK but given the statement in the LICENSE that all files without Apache headers are BSD licensed it probably would of made sense to add the headers to reduce any confusion. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Johnzon from the Incubator

Hi, I agree the project doesn’t have a large visible active community but I’m also not sure what the point of having Johnzon staying in the incubator. They tick along nicely, they certainly don’t need the incubator to check their releases and they understand the Apache Way of doing things.

Re: [VOTE] Release Eagle Version 0.3.0 RC3 (Incubating)

Hi, +1 (binding) Nice first release - well done. I checked: - release artefact contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE is good - NOTICE (or perhaps LICENSE) is missing copyright from [1] - All (non bundled) source files have Apache header - No unexpected binary files in the release -

Re: [VOTE] Graduate Apex from the Incubator

Hi, +1 binding and well done! Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] [FINERACT] 0.1.0.incubating for release

Hi, Little confusing if this is a call to vote on the incubator or not but either way this may help. If it is an incubator vote I’d vote -1 (binding) due to LICENSE/NOTICE issues and possible inclusion of Category B/Category X licensed software in a release. I checked: - Signature and hashes

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.2-incubating Release

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name - signatures good - DISCLAIMER(s) exists - source LICENSE and NOTICE good - binary LICENSEs and NOTICEs good - no unexpected binaries in source release - all source files have Apache headers - can compile from source Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating)

Hi, > LICENSE.txt - > https://github.com/apache/incubator-ranger/blob/master/LICENSE.txt > NOTICE.txt - https://github.com/apache/incubator-ranger/blob/master/NOTICE.txt Not looked in detail, but I will tomorrow when I get some time. I did notice there’s a MPL licensed software mentioned in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating)

Hi, Still needs some work IMO but if a JIRA was raised to fix these issues in a later release I’d vote +1 on a new RC without these fixes. Just as long as it’s all sorted before graduation. Minor issues: - LICENSE is missing MIT licensed Search Icon CSS copyright Nicolas Gallagher bundled in

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Fineract 0.1.2 (incubating)

Hi, -1 (binding) until GPL issues / dependancy clarified. My understand is that Hibernate is an optional dependancy here and that it is only use to run some tests and it is not required to use the product? Can you confirm that please. As is not bundled then there's no need to mention it at

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0-incubating RC3

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - file name contains incubating - hashes and signatures good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have headers - No unexpected binaries in source release - Can compile from source - Tests pass One the simplest and easiest releases I’ve had

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Mnemonic-0.1.2-incubating [rc2] (Revised)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - file name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE correct - All source files have headers - No binary files in release - Unable to build from source Other than the build issue also a very easy release to review. I was unable to build from source

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache CommonsRDF 0.2.0-incubating RC3

Hi, > @Justin is this the equivalent of a PPMC throwing you a freebie? :-) They didn't need to be added to my “owe me a beer” list :-) Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Tephra-0.8.0-incubating [rc1]

Hi, > The source code still shows "Copyright © 2015 Cask Data, Inc." notices. Are you sure you are looking at the source release bundle? I can’t see copyright Cask Data anywhere. > The code is still organized in co.cask.tephra... packages. That should be > org.apache.tephra..., right? That a

Re: [VOTE] Accept Pony Mail into the Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Tephra-0.8.0-incubating [rc1]

Hi, +1 binding. Minor issue with LICENSE file. I checked: - name includes incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE is missing license appendix, please raise a JIRA and fix for next release - NOTICE is fine - All source files have headers - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Fineract 0.1.2 (incubating)

Hi, > Sadly we still have an unwanted dependency bundled and we are using it in the > code. > That's why we still have the GPL reference in the LICENSE file. I can’t see that you have any GPL code bundled in the source release, you may depend on something that’s GPL license but that's another

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating)

Hi, > Just so that we get it right the next time, can you verify that the current > NOTICE is acceptable or does it require further changes? Doesn’t look correct to me as you are including items that should be in LICENSE not NOTICE. In general permissive licensed items don’t need to be

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Mynewt 0.8.0-incubating

Hi, +1 (binding) carried over from dev list - all usual checks done. 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 Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating)

Hi, As far as I can see the license and notice issues brought up in the previous 2 incubator releases have not been addressed. Is there any reason for this? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating)

Hi, -1 binding as there were several issue raised with the last release and they have not been fixed. This include missing licenses from LICENSE / NOTICE issues and one file which the license is unclear. [1] I )checked: - signatures all good - name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exists -

Re: [VOTE] Apache Apex Core Release 3.2.1-incubating (RC1)

Hi, +1 binding - carried over form dev list all of the usual checks done. 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-singa-incubating-0.3.0 (RC3)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good. - All Apache licenses source files have headers - No binary files in the source release Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe,

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Geode (incubating) 1.0.0-incubating.M2

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signatures correct - DISCLAIMER exits - source LICENSE has some minor issues (see below) - source NOICE is good - several JS files are missing Apache headers - no unexpected binary files in source release - can compile from source Source license

Re: [VOTE] [FINERACT] 0.1.0.incubating for release

Hi, > Since we are intending to make source only release and not include any jar > or compiled binaries. Part of the issue here is your current LICENSE/NOTICE lists dependancies not just what is bundled in the release. You only need to list what is bundled. > In such case, we wouldn't have

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.2.0-incubating Release

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name - signatures good - DISCLAIMER(s) exists - source and binary LICENSE/NOTICE identical to 3.1.2 release (and no new copyrights) so all good - no unexpected binaries in source release - all source files have Apache headers - can compile from source

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-0.3.0 (RC1)

Hi, Sorry -1 (binding) as there’s a CC license source file in the release [1]. This is category B [2] and generally can only be included in binary form. [3] The file also IMO incorrectly has an apache header on it. Depending on other IPMC opinions on this issue I’ll reconsider. Are there any

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

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 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 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

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

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, > 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

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, > 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, 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, > 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

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:

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] 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

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

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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, > » 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

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 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

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

Re: Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

Hi, > Perhaps showing a negative example of a resource you then realize you > can't add, e.g. you find a picture on flickr.com that you want to > bundle, but it's classified as CC Non-Commercial; so you find one that > you CAN include instead, but need to provide attribution for it. Nice idea

Re: Worked LICENSE and NOTICE example

Hi, > I wondered why you did not mention file headers further (beyond for > inspecting licenses), as that is part of ASF policy (while not a legal > requirement for using the Apache license) Very good question, I was just focused on the license and notice and didn’t look at headers and it may

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.9.1 RC1

Hi, And also: - no need to mention point “d” or list Apache 2.0 licensed software. [1] Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.9.1 RC1

Hi, > which as I understand it is the preferred way to include MIT-style licenses > in LICENSE.txt. That is the case. However other MIT license software include the LICENSE text are included in full (e.g. UTF-8 Library, epoch, jQuery). In all cases they are bundled with the source so I don’t

Re: [VOTE] $podling.apache.org is the same as $podling.incubator.apache.org

Hi, +1 but only if poddlings follow branding guidelines [1] (i.e. include disclaimer on website) I's also suggest that the inclusion of the incubator logo be changed to a MUST rather than a SHOULD as the URL may no longer include “incubator”. The page [1] may require a couple of minor edit as

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.0BETA-RC2

Hi, -1 (binding) until MPL licensed source issue resolved. I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE is OK, but look to be missing one permissive license? and assuming its ok it would be best if the MPL was in another file. - NOTICE is OK

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Atlas version 0.7-incubating RC2

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signature and hashes good - disclaimer exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - all source file have ASF header - no unexpected binaries in source release - can compile from source You may may to move the build instructions to the README as well as

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.0BETA-RC2

Hi, > . > If you think it's clearer, we can pull it into its own file and mention it > in the LICENSE for next release Sounds fine to me. > Regarding the effective_tld_names.dat, we had this discussion last release > and

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 -

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

Re: [VOTE] $podling.apache.org is the same as $podling.incubator.apache.org

Hi, > The presence of the word "incubator" in the URL is deliberate: it alerts users > that a podling is incubating. I'd feel better about this proposal if podlings > weren't so successful about concealing their incubation status[1][2]. > > -0, since the Incubator remains unserious about

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Trafodion (incubating) release 2.0.1-incubating RC3

Hi, 1+ binding I checked: - name include incubating (except installer) - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - no unexpected binary files in source release - all source files have ASF headers Is there any reason for the installer to not include

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Taverna Command-line Tool 3.1.0-incubating RC3

Hi, > This is how it was suggested to us by our mentors; but we're open for > improvements Not it any way an issue, it’s just a bit more verbose that notice NOTICE files I’ve seen. > But is "Public Domain" valid outside US? Should we append ASF headers > on it? (That should be allowed if it's

Re: Request to review updated License (Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating))

Hi, > I would like to get your feedback on updated LICENSE.txt for Ranger. > https://github.com/apache/incubator-ranger/blob/master/LICENSE.txt Has the full text of each license been placed somewhere? Most permissive license (e.g. MIT, BSD) require you to do that, often the legal requirement

Re: Request to review updated License (Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.5.3 (incubating))

Hi, > Generally speaking, we only need to include the licenses for the > dependencies, not a notice that the dependency is contained. My understanding is that on things that are bundled need to be mentioned. [1] (and all the things mentioned in that license are bundled). There no need to

Re: [DISCUSS] Incubator Logo & Branding

Hi, > As a follow up to the current discussions happening, I wanted to get > opinions from the IPMC on whether or not the Incubator logo should be > included in podling websites. +1 It gives a clear indication that the project is under incubation at the ASF. Bonus points for it linking to

Re: IPMC release vote checklist

Hi, Perhaps this is what you are looking for? http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release.html Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

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

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: [DISCUSS] new incubator project Apache IOT

Hi, > In Unix operating systems devices are files. For the I2C bus the device id > would /dev/i2c-0.(I do not believe this would be different on a PI vs and > Arduino). It a little different Arduino’s don't have an OS but a set of API/libraries you use. Lots of small devices don't have OSes or

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Celix - Publish Subscribe

Hi, > @Justin: The 72 hours have passed, I will keep this vote open for another > 24 hours. If you stlll have issues please provide an update. No issues I think you can consider it closed/passed. Thanks, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.12.0-incubating (RC2)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - incubating in name - signature and hashes fine (but would be good to include the KEYS file nearby) - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSEs are OK - NOTICE year need updating from 2016 to 2017 - All ASF files have headers - No unexpected binary files - Can compile from source

Re: [VOTE] Release apache-singa-incubating-1.1.0 (RC1)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good (you might consider using something other than md5 for the hash) - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - All source files have ASF headers - No unexpected binary files - Can't compile from source but

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Celix - Publish Subscribe

Hi, > No, the tar file contains the source files. Inside the tar file are source files and another tar file, it’s the second tar file I’m referring to. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Hi, > Same thread. Specifically Mark T's response [1] and Craig's affirmation [2] Not sure that applies here as I think we have compiled code without the corresponding source. Can someone on the project confirm? Even then I would expect that to be an unusual exception where there was no

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Hi, > If you look in the tar.gz you'll see that it's R source code, and a JAR for > testing. Its not compiled code. Looks like the jars contain compiled code to me: ./sparkr-interpreter/src/main/resources/sparkr_bundle.tar.gz - Contains R code and a jar that contains class files.

Re: Binary file inclusion (was [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0)

Hi, > My interpretation of the term "compiled code" means compiled versions of the > source code within the package. So how is including a jar in a source release to which there is no source code included (or even a pointer to that code that I can see) actually open source software? Given

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Atlas 0.7.1 (incubating) RC3

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE is good - NOTICE Is good (but year needs updating) - No unexpected binary files in source release - All ASF files have apache headers - Can compile from source You may not need jQuery-placeholer or platform.js in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0

Hi, > - The following test jars have been replaced with code to compile source > and build jars at runtime Great! > With regard to sbt, Apache Spark includes a build > script for sbt here: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/build/sbt Can > we grab that script and use it? Sure. > -

Re: [VOTE] Apache DistributedLog release 0.4.0-incubating

Hi, I also be -1 binding on this due to missing DISCLAIMER, ASF header issues and a possible binary release issue. I checked: - name includes incubating - signatures good - DISCLAIMER is missing - License is OK - Year needs updating in NOTICE. - A large number of files seem to have have

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Guacamole 0.9.11-incubating (RC1)

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - names include incubating - signature and hashes good - please update year in NOTICE - client LICENSE is missing license for this file [1] (mostly likely BSD but not 100% sure). Server LICENSE is fine. Can you fix this in the next release. - No unexpected binary files

Re: [IP CLEARANCE] Apache Celix - Publish Subscribe

Hi, I assume the binary file celix-pubsub.tar inside the grant is just compiled version of the code in the grant? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands,

Re: [VOTE] Apache DistributedLog release 0.4.0-incubating

Hi, > I think they might come from apache bookkeeper. when we started building > DL, we might copy some headers from bookkeeper. We will address this in > next RC. Look like they may of also fixed this issue [1]. For why see the last bit of Step 2 here [2]. I assume there’s no code from

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC8)

Hi, Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) as licensing issues and file headers reported last release that were not fixed. I checked: - names include incubating - signature and hashes are OK - disclaimer exits - LICENSE still has issues brought up from last release - NOTICE is OK but has wrong year -

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC8)

Hi, > Thanks again for your time checking our release, and sorry we’re still not > there. It’s a complex release and may take a little while to get right, and it ’s certainly not expected that you get everything right while in the incubator. In this case the issues where raised with the last

Re: [VOTE] Impala 2.8.0 release candidate 1

Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - name includes incubating - signatures and hashed correct - disclaimer exists - LICENSE is OK - NOTICE Is OK (but year is wrong - please fix for next release) - All apache source files have ASF headers - No unexpected binary files - Don't have an environment set up

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.6.3 (incubating) - rc1

Hi, -1 (binding) as issue brought up in previous releases have not been fixed. For items not fixed please see [1][2][3]. Also note that with json2.js license it seems a little unclear to me and may be under the JSON license. It does have “public domain” in the code so it may be OK, it still

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ranger 0.6.3 (incubating) - rc1

Hi, > I'll point out that Ranger has graduated to a TLP, so the IPMC's votes are > non-binding (unless you're on the Ranger PMC as well) I was wondering why they put something up to vote just before becoming a TLP. So I guess they should cancel that vote here? They probably should still look

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0

Hi, Sorry but it’s -1 binding due to unexpected binary in source release and can’t compile from source. There are some license and notice issue that also need to be sorted. I checked: - signatures and hashes exist - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE needs some work (has a “\n” in plain text in it

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