This vote thread looks like a hanging chad. The current vote count is:
+1 Ted
+1 Lars
+1 Justin
+1 or -1: Grant
-0 Jan
I would love to have a clarification vote from Grant. I read his concern
and the subsequent messages to mean +1 but I'm a bit biased as I'd like to
see this release go out.
This sounds good to me.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Jacques Nadeau jacq...@apache.org wrote:
This vote thread looks like a hanging chad. The current vote count is:
+1 Ted
+1 Lars
+1 Justin
+1 or -1: Grant
-0 Jan
I would love to have a clarification vote from Grant. I read his
On 13 October 2014 17:15, Branko Čibej br...@e-reka.si wrote:
On 13.10.2014 16:14, Julian Hyde wrote:
For many projects, especially library projects, the convenient binaries
that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that
are deployed to the maven repo. Calcite
On 13 October 2014 15:30, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Julian Hyde julianh...@gmail.com wrote:
For many projects, especially library projects, the convenient binaries
that matter most these
days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:24 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
If it contains sources, it's not a binary release.
Not strictly true. Binary artifacts often contain source code examples.
Also, for Drill specifically, the code generation strategy that Drill uses
requires that snippets of
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Justin Mclean
jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
...However votes on releases are more about the source release and
binaries releases are just a convenience so I don't see that as a blocker...
To clarify, the ASF only releases source code - votes on releases are
On 13 October 2014 10:06, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Justin Mclean
jus...@classsoftware.com wrote:
...However votes on releases are more about the source release and
binaries releases are just a convenience so I don't see that as a
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:18 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
... If the ASF mirrors are used to distribute convenience binaries, AIUI
these must still meet the following basic criteria...
I tend to agree and wanted to make sure this is clearly documented, so
I reread the following:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Any redistribution must obey the licensing requirements of the contents
so you are right that our binary redistributions need to be checked as
well, but as far as incubating projects are concerned it is IMO
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
make sure
podlings understand the difference between source code releases and
convenience binaries.
Based on recent discussion, a
For many projects, especially library projects, the convenient binaries
that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that are
deployed to the maven repo. Calcite releases in fact do not currently include a
binary tar ball, only a source tar ball and maven jars.
Are
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Julian Hyde julianh...@gmail.com wrote:
For many projects, especially library projects, the convenient binaries
that matter most these
days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that are deployed to the
maven repo...
...Are these jars subjected to due
@incubator.apache.org
Date: Sunday, October 12, 2014 at 10:23 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
Hi,
I can¹t seem to find the KEYS to verify the release.
The KEYS file is inside the release (probably
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org
wrote:
Any redistribution must obey the licensing requirements of the contents
so you are right that our binary redistributions need to be
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik r...@apache.org wrote:
Based on recent discussion, a review of this distinction would be
valuable
for many at Apache.
I very much second this. I think bringing some clarity at least into the
areas of:
#1 rules for complete source
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Julian Hyde julianh...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that each of those jars is a de facto binary release.
Definitely not.
An official release by the Apache Software Foundation consists of source code
which has been audited by a PMC. Of course it is not
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
The Foundation was not set up to take on the liabilitiy associated with
binary
releases:
http://s.apache.org/roy-binary-deps-3
How is that different from any of our other projects? End users
don't
On 13.10.2014 16:14, Julian Hyde wrote:
For many projects, especially library projects, the convenient binaries
that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that
are deployed to the maven repo. Calcite releases in fact do not currently
include a binary tar ball,
@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
+1 (binding)
- Downloaded bin and -src tarballs.
- Not knowing much about the internals of Drill (yet), I poked around in
the tarballs, looks all good.
- Ran some of the examples.
- All looks good
Hi,
I can¹t seem to find the KEYS to verify the release.
The KEYS file is inside the release (probably not the best place for it).
Also:
https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Steven+Phillipsop=index
Justin
-
To unsubscribe,
Actually, the licensing howto says things like this:
In LICENSE, add a pointer http://s.apache.org/Hqj to the dependency's
license within the source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing:
This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
3-clause BSD license. For
I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes
LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are
several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is
the key sentence:
Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of
their
Drill has had previous releases stopped *precisely* because NOTICE had too
much stuff in it. The items you mention are among these items.
I think the release is satisfactory as is.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen sro...@gmail.com wrote:
I am reading
That may be so, and I find this issue irritating to deal with, but I
don't see that it has bearing on what is ultimately correct. I think
that the guidance you refer to was wrong, according to the text of the
licenses, and the link I pointed to.
But even those are a bit ambiguous, so I raise the
Hi,
+1 binding.
I checked:
- vote assumed OK (see below)
- artefact name contains incubating
- DISCLAIMER exits
- LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for source package
- signatures and hash good
- All source files have apache headers
- No unexpected binary files in artefact
While Drill may depend
Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin
(practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not
an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm
familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different.
I
I had a look, since I was just dealing with NOTICE for another
project. The key is whether copies of the third-party libraries are
distributed. In the case of Drill, yes there are loads of 3rd party
jars distributed in jars/; they are not just Maven deps referenced in
pom.xml.
I am sure this will
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin
(practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm
not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to
Is it correct, then, to say that if Drill does not bundle any GPL licensed
libraries, we do not need any additional info in the NOTICE?
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org
wrote:
The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land.
When I brought this up previously, I was told a few things,
1) the notices required by BSD like licenses apparently should appear in
the LICENSE file.
2) notices in the source distribution only need to include things that are
included
Sean,
Are you talking about the src distribution after doing the build?
Before doing the build or after [mvn clean], there are no jars in the
distribution.
Videlicet:
*ted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ mvn -q
cleanted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ find . -name
No I just went straight for the binary distribution:
http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating.tar.gz
This contains the third-party jar files in jars/.
I assume http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html is still the
law of the land so to speak and
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com wrote:
The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land.
There's hardly any daylight between what Roy was recommending 8 years
ago and what we recommend today. (NOTICE should be minimal, only
bundled bits get documented
+1 (binding)
I have downloaded the code, compiled and run the tests.
I also checked all checksums, and verified the signatures. I also verified
that the signing key was signed by people I trust (and indeed, by me as
well) and correctly propagated to the gpg key servers.
I also reviewed in both
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release
+1 (binding)
I have downloaded the code, compiled and run the tests.
I also checked all checksums, and verified the signatures. I
for a few days.
Obviously that is just my opinion.)
Thanks.
-- Lars
From: Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com
To: general@incubator.apache.org general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill
Hi.
I have had a look at your release and it looks good, I could not find any
formal errors.
But I took a closer look at the release vote thread, because a failing unit
test is a serious bad quality signal for me.
Whenever I test new software, I download it, build it, then run all test
cases
The unit test was only on Java 1.8. That problem will be resolved in the
next release which will be in roughly a month from now. The current
primary target of Drill is 1.7.
The number of reviewers for the release is an indication of how the
community doesn't view Java 1.8 as a critical platform
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:41 AM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
It seems (from the vote thread) you already have solved the problem, but
dont want to wait for a respin, can you please at least explain why the
project is under such a time constraint, that 72 hours is too long to wait
to make good
Hi Jan,
The issue was discussed on the release voting thread and there seems to be
an agreement
in the community that it may not be worth holding the release to include
Java 8 support
since
1.) Among most of the users, as evident on the vote thread, very few are
running Java 8
in dev and test
Hi
First let me make it clear I am not a java specialist, and secondly big
thanks to both of you for explaining more in detail what the problem is.
On 7 October 2014 21:24, Aditya a...@apache.org wrote:
Hi Jan,
The issue was discussed on the release voting thread and there seems to be
an
Jan,
Your concern was a valid one and definitely one worth explanation.
Please do not take my response as a rant from an upset soul :), rather an
explanation
towards why we chose to do what we did. I apologize if I sounded like one.
We are, sometime, limited by the tools that we use and one
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
4.) And lastly, as Julian mentioned on the thread that the set of fixes
might not be complete yet,
I think we need more time before we can merge these changes in to a
release
with confidence to
support a new platform.
I
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote:
My intentation was to raise a concern, NOT to block the release (I did on
purpose give a 0 and not -1). I am sorry if you feel its an over-statement,
but honestly for me failing unit tests and not checking a version
dependency (in
In case there is any confusion, the first email sent out in this thread had
the wrong vote count. The second one has the correct count:
+9 binding
+3 non-binding
I should also mention there was one -0 (binding). This was due to unit test
failures when using java 1.8. Jiras were filed, and the
I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to
the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed
our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30
JIRAs closed in the last month.
The vote thread can be found
I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to
the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed
our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30
JIRAs closed in the last month.
The vote thread can be found
47 matches
Mail list logo
