[RESULT][VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

(re-posting with proper subject line) The vote has PASSED with 3 +1 binding votes from the Incubator PMC members, and no 0 or -1 votes: +1 Justin Mclean +1 Roman Shaposhnik +1 Konstantin Boudnik Thread:

[RESULT][VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

(re-posting with proper subject line) The vote has PASSED with 3 +1 binding votes from the Incubator PMC members, and no 0 or -1 votes: +1 Justin Mclean +1 Roman Shaposhnik +1 Konstantin Boudnik Thread:

[RESULT][VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

The vote has PASSED with 3 +1 binding votes from the Incubator PMC members, and no 0 or -1 votes: +1 Justin Mclean +1 Roman Shaposhnik +1 Konstantin Boudnik Thread:

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Thank you to Justin, Roman and Konstantin for the thorough review. We will make the recommended changes as part of the next release. Regards, Frank On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote: > +1 > > - checksums/signatures are Ok > - rat is clean (although,

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

+1 - checksums/signatures are Ok - rat is clean (although, having 700+ files without a header looks confusing) - can build On the comments side (on top of what Justine already caught): - having a pom just for running rat? Might as well hook up all the cmake shenanigan to it and safe the

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Yup, I found this quite confusing indeed to have a bunch of files like modules/**/*.c without any licenses nor mentioning anywhere. Am I missing some previous discussions that wave the need for the headers in those? Cos On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 04:51PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > The

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Frank McQuillan wrote: > Hello Incubator PMC, > > Thank you in advance for reviewing MADlib v1.9-rc1. > > This is the 2nd ASF release for Apache MADlib (incubating). The goal of > this 2nd release is: general availability of MADlib v1.9

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - release name contains incubating - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE good - NOTICE has minor documentation issue - Apache files have Apache headers. All 16 of them :-) - there are 711 unknown but assumed BSD or Apache where trivial. - No

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] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Hi Justin, The only new files are build related cmake or yaml files. We reviewed the policy regarding files that do not require a license header from the apache website (http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html). "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Hi, Are the new files added since the previous release (and missing Apache headers) be considered under the Apache license or BSD license? Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For

[VOTE] MADlib v1.9-rc1

Hello Incubator PMC, Thank you in advance for reviewing MADlib v1.9-rc1. This is the 2nd ASF release for Apache MADlib (incubating). The goal of this 2nd release is: general availability of MADlib v1.9 for community use. The software in this release is very similar to the 1st ASF release