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

I think my argument is need vs require. Basically with this policy, we would be telling people there are certain tools you may not use. John On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 5:04 PM Ted Dunning wrote: > The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a >

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

The single case that I can see for mystery jars in binary form is when a test case needs to cover malformed binaries or binaries produced on obsolete platforms (does anybody have a Java 1.3 compiler handy). (don't answer that, I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of people still require 1.3

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

Yeah, Paul makes a very good point. When you're new to a platform and trying to debug tests, trying to find out whats hidden inside mysterious test jars etc is often tedious at best. Build at test time is ideal. Tom On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <

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

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Paul King wrote: > ...I actually think what we ended up with does make it clearer > exactly what is going on Definitely - what Groovy did avoids having Mysterious Binaries in their releases, which we don't want. -Bertrand

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

Just FYI, Groovy had numerous such "test" jars and wrapper files and such initially. It turned out to only be a couple of hours work to remove them and build them on the fly within the build files. While I certainly see both sides of the argument about whether some "binary-like" artifacts might be

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

On 1/23/17, 9:51 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote: >> >> The gradle wrapper and similar are also not permitted. Build processes >> need to bootstrap it. >> >> >I would like to understand why, from a legal standpoint, these are not >allowed. I don't think it is a legal issue.

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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:04 AM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:35 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > What I'm trying to make sure we're agreeing to is > > that the problem isn't that there is a JAR to .tar.gz file in the > >

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

Hi everyone, Based on feedback we've received regarding issues with this release candidate, we are preparing a new candidate to address those issues. - The following test jars have been replaced with code to compile source and build jars at runtime to provide the same test functionality: -

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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:35 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > What I'm trying to make sure we're agreeing to is > that the problem isn't that there is a JAR to .tar.gz file in the > distribution. Its that the original source is missing. No. Bundling jar files is not OK in

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

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:19 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > 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

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

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:24 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey > > > wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM,

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

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:34 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM, John D. Ament >> wrote: >> > However, regarding the >> > binaries. In a

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

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:58 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > > [3]: > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain > > That document has been superseded. Official

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

Sorry, I'll clarify. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:01 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > 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: >

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)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 5:47 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > [3]: http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain That document has been superseded. Official Release Policy, curated by VP Legal, is here: http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy

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

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 4:59 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > 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

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

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

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM, John D. Ament > wrote: > > However, regarding the > > binaries. In a recent discussion (on legal-discuss) it was decided that > > this was OK. Ideally the

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

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:41 AM, John D. Ament wrote: > However, regarding the > binaries. In a recent discussion (on legal-discuss) it was decided that > this was OK. Ideally the NOTICE would include the information on the > binary's source of origin (assuming that the

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

Justin, Agreed on the -1 due to licensing issues. However, regarding the binaries. In a recent discussion (on legal-discuss) it was decided that this was OK. Ideally the NOTICE would include the information on the binary's source of origin (assuming that the source was eligible to be licensed

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

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

Hello, TL/DR +1 (non-binding). So I had a go at running toree & jupyter from the artifacts and it all seems ok although there were a couple of things I noticed. I downloaded toree-pip from https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc4/ since that is what the original vote

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

It's ok, let's concentrate on getting the reviews done and 3 required binding votes from IPMC members. On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Chip Senkbeil wrote: > Can't tell if my other mail got through. Do I need to open a new thread to > indicate that the vote stays open

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

Can't tell if my other mail got through. Do I need to open a new thread to indicate that the vote stays open for more than 72 hours? Or is it okay to make that statement here and keep this thread open? On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:19 AM Ian Dunlop wrote: > Hello, > > I

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

Hello, I wonder if it would be better to say "The vote is open for _at least_ 72 hours " (ie will not be closed until at least 72 hours have passed) rather than "The vote is open for 72 hours " (ie will definitely be closed in 72 hours regardless of votes) The first version means that you

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

Bringing up my +1 from dev list. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Chip Senkbeil wrote: > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree > (incubating) version 0.1.0. > > A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC. > > PPMC vote result

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

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree (incubating) version 0.1.0. A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC. PPMC vote result thread: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5589e9b729333b0d95ccea639fcacf03fdc3d9480aaeb8e80399ad35@ PPMC vote thread: