Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Thanks Justin,
We did remove that jar before creating this RC0 but thanks for answering
the question.

Meghna

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Please let me know if anyone sees any other major issues in this file.
>
> Thanks - that's looking a lot better. I did notice a question in the wiki
> page "Question 5: is it ok to include a necessary jar?”. Compiled source
> code can't be included in a source release so no it’s not OK to include it.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Thanks Justin!

I have reviewed this PR
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701> and made a few more
changes. The final changes to the LICENSE file can be summarized as follows
-
1. I have reverted commit 8930d96 (PR #9484)
2. Revisited some comments from previous release which are now relevant and
made appropriate changes - based on points 8-11 and 13 to 19 in this wiki,
section E
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses>
3. Ran a fresh search for dependencies with a separate license and added
the missing ones to the LICENSE file.
4. Reviewed the Apache Policy and confirmed to the best of my understanding
the LICENSE file complies with the guidelines.

Please let me know if anyone sees any other major issues in this file.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I
> > have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here.
> > Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701
> >
> > It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other
> > necessary changes.
>
> Please follow the process at [1], what important is that the PPMC knows
> how to do this on their own.
>
> I would guess that a little more needs to be done than just reverting the
> changes as wouldn’t that mean the feedback from the previous release would
> of of been reverted as well?
>
> Double check that:
> - all 3rd party bundled software is mentioned in license (it's optional if
> you want to put ALv2 in there)
> - that only bundled things are mentioned and that dependancies are not
> - the full text of 3rd party licenses is included or pointed to from the
> LICENSE file
>
> If you miss a couple that’s OK, as every thing has a permissive license,
> we can fix that in a later release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I
have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here.
Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701

It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other
necessary changes.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Haibin Lin <haibin.lin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the comments. The license issue should be fixed in the next
> RC then.
>
> Other than that, is moving submodules like dmlc-core/nnvm/ps-lite etc. to
> 3rd-party a must-have for the the next release candidate of 1.1.0? In the
> original LICENSE file (MXNet 1.0.0) we explicitly state that these
> submodules are provided under apache 2.0 license. Moving these submodules
> requires change in multiple build configuration (cmake & make) for multiple
> build targets (MXNet core / cpp-packge / amalgamation). I suggest creating
> a JIRA issue for this and making sure this is addressed in the release
> after 1.1.0. Is that reasonable?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Haibin
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see
> > missing
> > > licenses?
> > >
> > > You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI
> > would
> > > rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is
> > > there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for
> > > instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but
> > > without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell
> > > what has been included or not :-)
> > >
> >
> > Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so
> > it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control.
> > ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to
> me.
> > Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it
> > doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from
> the
> > > > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
> > > > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make
> > the
> > > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you
> > think
> > > > this is a blocker for this release?
> > >
> > > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote
> differently.
> > > <general-h...@incubator.apache.org>
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get
> > worse.
> >
> > Hen
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hi Justin,

Thank you for your time to review this Release Candidate.
For this Release I attempted to fix most of the pending license issues and
I have documented all the changes in this wiki -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses
Any comments/feedback would be very helpful.

Also, In this wiki, I have listed the files and folders (with my reasons)
that I have excluded from the Apache RAT check. Are there any files apart
from these excluded ones where you see missing licenses?
(To make the review process easier I will add a ‘rat-excludes’ file to the
src next time.)

The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the
previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make the
required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think
this is a blocker for this release?

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal


On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry but -1 binding for me due to LICENSE issues but happy to discuss and
> change my vote depending on what other IPMC members think.
>
> Putting “wherever applicable” is probably not enough to compile with the
> terms of 3rd party licenses or ASF policy. Most licenses say the full text
> of the license needs to be included in order to comply with the terms of
> the license and that normally includes a copyright line. Usually files have
> the license text as the header so this is probably OK from a licensing
> point of view but I can see a number of cases here where they don’t. There
> are also several types of BSD license included not just the 2 clause BSD
> license listed in license.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has issues
> - NOTICE has wrong year
> - source files are missing license headers
> - no unexpected binary files
> - can compile from source
>
> For license all the 3rd party pieces need to be listed in LICENSE. [1]
> There is also software under other licenses i.e. (zlib) that are are not
> mentioned in license.
>
> I’m still confused how some files are licensed as they are missing headers
> (about 600 files) and this make the release hard to review. i.e. How do you
> tell if someone forget to put an ASF header on a file or is it a 3rd party
> file and if so how is it licensed?
>
> Also two minor things I noticed with the vote thread:
> a) several people said they tested the release from what was on GitHub,
> the one in dist.apache.org would be the one tested.
> b) Votes are pen for a minimum pf 72 hours not exactly 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 2. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/blob/master/LICENSE
>
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

[Meghna Baijal]

Henri,
I added your comments related to notice and licensing to the same issue
here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8913
and created a separate issue to track the submodules here -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8920.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1.
>
> Items I note should happen post release are:
>
> * Move the various git submodules into third-party/ or similar so it's
> simpler to see what is Apache original source when we review a release.
> * Deal with the Copyright statements in perl-package (copyright holder has
> approved doing this)
> * Lots of whitespace on end of NOTICE
> * Comment added to CODEOWNERS to explain the file so we don't cause
> community problems
> * There was a suggestion to simplify the LICENSE to not explicitly list
> which packages are under each license. Something to consider.
>
> Hen
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> >
> > This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
> > candidate 1.
> >
> >
> > Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> >
> >
> > *Vote thread:*
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5fb6766c
> > 7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> >
> > *Result thread:*
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96afd059082
> > ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> >
> > *The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
> at:*
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc1/
> >
> >
> >
> > *The release tag can be found here: *
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc1
> >
> >
> >
> > *The release hash is *25720d0e3c29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb* and can
> be
> > found here:*
> >
> > <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> > 25720d0e3c29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb>
> >
> >
> >
> > *Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
> >
> > 16DD B2E2 FE0C 3925 CB13  38D7 21F3 F9AB C622 DF82
> >
> >
> >
> > *KEY files are available here:*
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
> >
> >
> >
> > *For information about the contents of this release, see:*
> >
> > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> > Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0+Release+Notes>
> >
> >
> >
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0
> >
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> >
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > -Chris Olivier
> >
> > cjolivie...@apache.org
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello Justin,
Thank you for your vote.
I have created a Github issue to track all your comments here -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/8913

I will make sure all these issues are fixed soon after the 1.0.0 release.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Sebastian <ssc.o...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> +1 (binding)
>
>
> On 01.12.2017 04:30, Chris Olivier wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Additional note:
>>
>> This MXNet v1.0 release is planned to be announced at the NIPS conference
>> starting Monday, 04-Dec and hence would request your support in meeting
>> this timeline. We will continue to address any non-critical issues after
>> this release as well.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Chris Olivier <cjolivie...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
>>> candidate 1.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>>>
>>>
>>> *Vote thread:*
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5
>>> fb6766c7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>> *Result thread:*
>>>
>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96af
>>> d059082ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>> *The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
>>> at:*
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc1/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The release tag can be found here: *
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *The release hash is *25720d0e3c29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb* and can
>>> be found here:*
>>>
>>> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/25720d0e3c
>>> 29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
>>>
>>> 16DD B2E2 FE0C 3925 CB13  38D7 21F3 F9AB C622 DF82
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *KEY files are available here:*
>>>
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *For information about the contents of this release, see:*
>>>
>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+
>>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0+Release+Notes>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0
>>>
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> -Chris Olivier
>>>
>>> cjolivie...@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello Sergio,
This is how the NOTICE file looks at the moment -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.0.0/NOTICE

I had worked on the NOTICE file prior to the 0.11.0 Release and had
followed the link you mentioned.
I had added a few notices into this file, including Caffe, MS coco etc but
there were comments during the general voting process for 0.11.0 to remove
these.
These comments are tracked in this Github issue -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7748.

According to me the NOTICE file is ok, but do you think you could help us
review it ?

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Bhavin Thaker <bhavintha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Sergio,
>
> Thanks for guidance.
>
> The binary file has been removed now.
> See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/
> gradle/wrapper
>
> We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end
> of today.
>
> Regards,
> Bhavin Thaker.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:
> >
> > * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
> > licensed dependency.
> > * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> > * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
> >
> > The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address
> some
> > issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
> > binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
> > vote for a RC2.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g.
> > [15][16]
> > > > [18]
> > > > > >> [19] and many others
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies.
> > I'll
> > > > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a
> third-party/
> > > > > > directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a
> lot
> > > > > easier to review.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> > > don't
> > > > > > need to name them.
> > > > >
> > > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3]
> > but
> > > is
> > > > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > > > LICENSE
> > > > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix
> > up
> > > > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot
> of
> > > > help.
> > > > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss
> > something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-
> principle
> > > > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the
> > MXNet
> > > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already
> > being
> > > > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to
> > list
> > > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> > > unless listed specifically.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello Justin, Henri,
Thank you for your input.

Justin,
Chris ran Apache Rat on MXNet this morning. Several issues found here, in
addition to your comments that needed a fix have been addressed in the
following 2 PRS -
1. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8873/
2. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8876/

It would be helpful if you could review these changes.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal



On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16] [18]
> >> [19] and many others
> >>
> >
> > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > directory.
>
> Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> easier to review.
>
> > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we don't
> > need to name them.
>
> In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
>
> > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
>
> Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but is
> useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in LICENSE
> so it seemed odd to omit it.
>
> Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up
> what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of help.
> Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Thank you Dave, Sergio and Henri for your comments.
I will make sure to follow the points specified by you in future emails.

Sergio,
In reference to the two points you mentioned for your negative vote, I
would like to add this -
1. Tianqi Chen has confirmed (via slack) that for this binary '
nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar’ there isn't a
notice file that should be added.
2. The addition of the copyright line that you mentioned was discussed in
the 0.11.0 vote thread.
In order to track these comments from 0.11.0 release, I created this github
issue — https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7749
And this Issue was fixed for the 1.0.0 release in this PR —
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/8688

However, if you still believe that we are missing something, I can make
changes immediately after this release to fix any gaps.

Currently, the goal is to have MXNet version 1.0.0 release ready before the
NIPS conference that starts on 04-Dec, 2017 and it would be helpful if you
would be ok to change your vote to a positive one considering these points.
We will definitely fix any pending issues immediately after the release.


Thanks,

Meghna Baijal

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Hen <bay...@apache.org> wrote:

> Thank you for the review Sergio :)
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Sergio Fernández <wik...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Incubator DISCLAIMER included.
> > * LICENSE file contains information that should go in the NOTICE.
> >
>
> Interested in which you think should be in there. The license file is
> pointing to licenses lower in the tree that contain their various items.
> One could argue the Copyright for the BSD etc should either be in LICENSE
> or NOTICE, but it is in those lower directories.
>
>
> > * Build worked fine on my desktop (Ubuntu 17.10, GCC 7.2.0).
> >
> > * I'd put the install instruction somewhere more prominent
> > than docs/install/index.md, and probably more CLI-friendly text
> document.
> > Actually I was confused by the very different instruction from
> > http://mxnet.apache.org/install/index.html So always take into account
> > usability of your source release.
> >
>
> This one always bothers me too. I get why there are lots of .md files,
> that's how life on GitHub works, but it makes life difficult when reviewing
> the source tarball.
>
>
> > * The KEYS file are not correctly linked in the VOTE email. They weren't
> > that hard to find at https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
> > mxnet/KEYS, but should be properly linked..
> >
> > Event thoughmy vote for this RC1 is -1 (binding), because:
> >
> > * Binary nnvm/tvm/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar is
> > distributed without NOTICE.
> >
>
> Noting that nnvm is a third party app (though one that some of the MXNet
> committers work on). Perhaps a bug report/patch could be submitted there.
>
> However, the gradle wrapper is under Apache 2.0, and does not have a NOTICE
> file (uppercase NOTICE). NNVM has an Apache 2.0 license in its root. It's
> not as user friendly as it could be, but I believe it is being distributed
> with license notice (lower case notice), which is all the license requires.
>
> (While Gradle does have additional licensing in their LICENSE file, I don't
> see any of that in the gradle-wrapper.jar).
>
>
> > * Files' header contain, after the normative ASF license header,
> confusing
> > copyright information that should be cleaned to avoid confusions.
> >
>
> If you mean:
>
>  *  Copyright (c) 2017 by Contributors
>
> Then that was reintroduced by specific request of a previous Incubator
> vote/Incubator PMC feedback. Not all the code is covered by a CLA/grant (I
> counted 400 contributors), so the original Copyright statement is
> maintained (the enormously ugly 'Copyright Contributors').
>
> Thanks,
>
> Hen
>

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.12.1 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello All,


This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.12.1, release
candidate 0.


Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.


*Vote thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/254d533bf9b2df9ac2de960ba6303d89d5d39a783573b4c6e47e4e08@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*Result thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2027f372ebff981ea2e585f6215d8a6a844058e7628a1f16ebd351c9@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:*

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.12.1.rc0/



*The release tag can be found here: *

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.12.1.rc0



*The release hash is *e0c7906693f0c79b0ce34a4d777c26a6bf1903c1* and can be
found here:*

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/e0c7906693f0c79b0ce34a4d777c26a6bf1903c1



*Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*

69FF E8D6 1051 FFE7 E61B 02C2 80FD 81D7 703D F31B



*KEY files are available here:*

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.12.1.rc0/



*For information about the contents of this release, see:*

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+0.12.1+Release+Notes



The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.


[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.12.1

[ ] +0 no opinion

[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


Thanks,

Meghna Baijal

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.12.0 release RC0

[Meghna Baijal]

Hello All,

This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.12.0, release
candidate 0.

Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.

*Vote thread:*
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/800402860be8a1b4055ede075ab465af48b7f8d041b42217372a63b9@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

*Result thread:*
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/83ab3763f0bb8468511269266bf0c26bdc786509d2cb38a2aafe30a3@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:*
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.12.0.rc0/


*The release tag can be found here: *
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.12.0.rc0


*The release hash is 4f2af2d2e5216ab3a1faadcc117709b6836029dc and can be
found here:*
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/4f2af2d2e5216ab3a1faadcc117709b6836029dc


*Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
69FF E8D6 1051 FFE7 E61B 02C2 80FD 81D7 703D F31B


*KEY files are available here:*
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.12.0.rc0/


*For information about the contents of this release, see:*
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+0.12.0+Release+Notes


The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.12.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

[ANNOUNCE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 Release

[Meghna Baijal]

The Apache MXNet community is happy to announce Apache MXNet version 0.11.0! We 
hit some major milestones with this release! 
This is our first official release as an incubating Apache project. The project 
has now fully migrated its codebase and website to Apache. 
This release includes code contributions from developers from Apple, Samsung, 
Microsoft and many other. 
We have also crossed over 400 contributors on the project so far. The 0.11.0 
release features Apple Core ML model converter, Support for Keras v1.2.2.

A blog that explains an end to end use case of building an ios app using MXNet 
and Core ML:
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/ai/bring-machine-learning-to-ios-apps-using-apache-mxnet-and-apple-core-ml/
 


The AWS blog that highlights the key features of the release: 
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/ai/apple-core-ml-and-keras-support-now-available-for-apache-mxnet/
 


A full list of the changes in this release can be found in the release notes: 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+0.11.0+Release+Notes 

 
Link to Download: http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mxnet/ 

 
To build this project, view this page and select “Build from Source”:
http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/get_started/install.html 


The Docker Images can be found here:
https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet/ 

The Pip package can be found here:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/mxnet 

The Release Tag is here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0 


MXNet Resources
   - Issues: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues 

   - Wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET 

   - Mailing list(s): d...@mxnet.incubator.apache.org 
 

For more information on Apache MXNet, please see:
https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/  
 
Thanks!
Apache MXNet(incubating) Team
___
 
DISCLAIMER:
Apache MXNet (incubating) is an effort undergoing incubation at The
Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the name of Apache
Incubator PMC. Incubation is required of all newly accepted
projects until a further review indicates that the
infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have
stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF
projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection
of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate
that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
 

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Thanks John. I will create the JIRA tickets to track your inputs as requested. 

Meghna
 
> On Aug 29, 2017, at 6:14 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Ok, so here's my +1 to release, with the following notes:
> 
> - The NOTICE file is wrong.  Unless the dependencies listed have explicit
> notice requirements (they don't seem to) nothing needs to be added to the
> NOTICE file.
> - The source headers should be reverted in any areas where not all
> contributors to that file have signed ICLAs, otherwise we need some kind of
> agreement they are OK with moving to NOTICE file (which is how this has
> been handled in the past).
> 
> Please create JIRAs to track these.
> 
> John
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:09 PM Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org 
> <mailto:bay...@apache.org>> wrote:
> 
>> I believe all the major contributors were ICLA'd, and I disagree that all
>> contributors need to SGA/ICLA; we don't do that for an existing project.
>> 
>> We need to do the check to see how the footprint of contributions for the
>> largest contributor without an ICLA is (apologies for the horrible wording
>> there). There are over 400 contributors, but (quickly eyeballing) most are
>> covered by ICLA or small contributions. Note that we also have clause 5 of
>> Apache 2.0 at play for historical contributions here.
>> 
>> To John's point on source headers; the previous source headers said
>> "Copyright  by Contributors".
>> 
>> Hen
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:01 Craig Russell <apache@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Henri,
>>> 
>>> If a project was developed outside Apache then everyone who contributed
>> to
>>> the project has to have an ICLA on file or file a Software Grant as part
>> of
>>> IP Clearance.
>>> 
>>> It's not sufficient that the code has always been under the ASL 2.0.
>>> 
>>> Are there any contributors to the project before it came to the incubator
>>> who are not now committers?
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Craig
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies - I missed that mentors hadn't voted on the podling release.
>>> Will
>>>> review tonight; hopefully their mentors can do similar.
>>>> 
>>>> There's no reason for an SGA here (and who would even sign it?). Code
>> has
>>>> been apache 2.0 since the initial commit on GitHub.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 06:45 John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dominic,
>>>>> 
>>>>> One question, from looking a second time.  Was MXNet always Apache
>>> Licensed
>>>>> (prior to coming to the ASF)?
>>>>> 
>>>>> John
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:39 AM Dominic Divakaruni <
>>>>> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for the reply, John. None of the mentors have voted so far.
>>>>>> Henri, Suneel, Marcus, Sebastian, can you gents please review and
>> vote?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also, Henri, didn't you mention that there was an SGA for this
>> project?
>>>>>> Sorry if I don't recollect the exact details on the SGA bit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dom
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 5:27 AM, John D. Ament <
>> johndam...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Non pmc members can vote non-binding.  Usually mentors review
>>> releases.
>>>>>>> Have any of your mentors reviewed and voted on it?  Due to there
>> being
>>>>> no
>>>>>>> SGA its a harder release to review.  I also need to cross check
>> ICLAs
>>>>> and
>>>>>>> files that have changed license.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2017 8:13 AM, "Dominic Divakaruni" <
>>>>>>> dominic.divakar...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Can this vote pass without the three +1's from the PMC? Can the
>>>>>>> committers
>>>>>>>> for this project provide binding votes on ge

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Hi All, 
This is a reminder that the vote to release MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 is still 
open.
The vote will close on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 8.04 PM UTC.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because…

Thanks,
Meghna



> On Aug 25, 2017, at 1:04 PM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> 
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
> candidate 3.
> 
> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
> 
> Vote thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>  
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> 
> 
> Result thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>  
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> 
> 
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> 
> 
> The release tag can be found here: 
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3>
> 
> 
> The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be found 
> here:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd
>  
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd>
> 
> 
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549
> 
> 
> KEY files are available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/>
> 
> 
> For information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate
>  
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate>
> 
> 
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> 
> Thanks.

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0 release RC3

[Meghna Baijal]

Hi all

This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 0.11.0, release
candidate 3.

Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2695a598ae0622484d4c886dc5b2ea823c306ca4ebef66accec6ee76@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
 



Result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d860c49194ec71c5c83ac0fa68df13050dbfada4ff7052be3401fc1b@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
 



The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 



The release tag can be found here: 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/0.11.0.rc3 



The release hash is ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd and can be found 
here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/ba6413d29769075dd883ec5fe6eb24afc98fb3fd
 



Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
AA3EBCC3E65A768AE3D2A64B8EF47B8720E8C549


KEY files are available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/0.11.0.rc3/ 



For information about the contents of this release, see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/v0.11.0+Release+Notes+-+MXNet+v0.11+Release+Candidate
 



The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1 Release this package as 0.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Thanks.