Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Hi, There are several files missing license headers - is this a concern? ./dev/phoenix.importorder ./examples/STOCK_SYMBOL.csv ./examples/WEB_STAT.csv ./examples/pig/test.pig ./examples/pig/testdata ./phoenix-core/src/main/resources/java.sql.Driver (ignoring CHANGES and rat.txt files) Some very minor issues that you may want to fix/change: - build.txt has copyright 2010 in it - build.text should probably be called BUILDING - there's no .zip package - not require but convenient for users - source package name doesn't include apache, not required you may want to consider adding this for trademark protection Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Thanks for all the feedback. We'll spin up another RC shortly for our 3.0 and 4.0 release with the corrections to our NOTICE and LICENSE files, along with ensuring that our source release matches the source bundle exactly. One question: given that we'll indicate the bundled products and their licenses in our LICENSE file, where does the copyright info go? If I understand this section: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice, then we should still include the copyrights in our NOTICE file, since our binary distribution does not have the original NOTICE for the bundled binary jars. Thanks, James On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.comwrote: Hi, There are several files missing license headers - is this a concern? ./dev/phoenix.importorder ./examples/STOCK_SYMBOL.csv ./examples/WEB_STAT.csv ./examples/pig/test.pig ./examples/pig/testdata ./phoenix-core/src/main/resources/java.sql.Driver (ignoring CHANGES and rat.txt files) Some very minor issues that you may want to fix/change: - build.txt has copyright 2010 in it - build.text should probably be called BUILDING - there's no .zip package - not require but convenient for users - source package name doesn't include apache, not required you may want to consider adding this for trademark protection Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. Thanks, James * NOTICE ** Apache Phoenix (Incubating) Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). In addition, this product includes the following software: JLine (http://jline.sourceforge.net/), Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Marc Prud'hommeaux m...@cornell.edu SQLLine (https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/), Copyright (c) 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Marc Prud'hommeaux Copyright (c) 2004-2010 The Eigenbase Project Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Julian Hyde SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/), Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch ANTLR (http://www.antlr.org/), Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terrence Parr. Snappy (http://code.google.com/p/snappy/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. JAnsi (http://jansi.fusesource.org/) Copyright (c) 2009-2013 FuseSource, Corp HawtJNI (http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/) Copyright (C) 2009-2011 FuseSource Corp. Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org/) Copyright (c) 2007- Tatu Saloranta, tatu.salora...@iki.fi Protobuf (https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. Guava (http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. * LICENSE * The Apache License, Version 2.0, also applies to the following bundled libraries: JAnsi, http://jansi.fusesource.org/ HawtJNI, http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/ Jackson, http://jackson.codehaus.org/ Guava, http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/ == BSD Clause 3/New BSD License, applies to the following bundled libraries: Snappy, http://code.google.com/p/snappy/ Protobuf, https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ SQLLine, https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/ Full license included below: -- BSD Clause 3/New BSD License Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the organization nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. == BSD Clause 2 License, applies to the following bundled libraries: JLine, http://jline.sourceforge.net/ ANTLR, http://www.antlr.org/ Full license included below: -- The BSD 2-Clause License Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread -- I have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives. The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the complete text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it is not forbidden, either. The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices. Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and they should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for additional explanation: http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a Because the file is named NOTICE, people tend to think it's for anything notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back over and over like a weed... Best, Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file? On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread -- I have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives. The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the complete text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it is not forbidden, either. The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices. Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and they should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for additional explanation: http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a Because the file is named NOTICE, people tend to think it's for anything notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back over and over like a weed... Best, Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Marvin - The one example in that email thread (airavata), has a bunch of copyright notices in there NOTICE file: https://github.com/apache/airavata/blob/master/modules/distribution/airavata-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE Is that correct or incorrect? I think the reason this comes up a lot is because most of us are software developers, not IP lawyers. My interpretation of the license howto is that you include the copyright info, since those bits are bundled in our binary distribution and their original NOTICE files are no longer present. Is that the incorrect way to interpret this: Copyright notifications which have been relocatedhttp://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers from source files (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 nothttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62 be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations. When I read the Apache 2.0, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause, and MIT licenses, they all state this: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Doesn't that mean that the copyright notice is required? Again, I'm an engineers, so I'm not sure how to interpret this language. I'm just trying to get a release out. Thanks, James On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.orgwrote: Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file? On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread -- I have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives. The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the complete text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it is not forbidden, either. The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices. Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and they should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for additional explanation: http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a Because the file is named NOTICE, people tend to think it's for anything notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back over and over like a weed... Best, Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 26 March 2014 22:45, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Marvin - The one example in that email thread (airavata), has a bunch of copyright notices in there NOTICE file: https://github.com/apache/airavata/blob/master/modules/distribution/airavata-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE Is that correct or incorrect? Could well be correct; I've not checked the NOTICE files for the bundled code. I think the reason this comes up a lot is because most of us are software developers, not IP lawyers. My interpretation of the license howto is that you include the copyright info, since those bits are bundled in our binary distribution and their original NOTICE files are no longer present. Is that the incorrect way to interpret this: Copyright notifications which have been relocatedhttp://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers from source files (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However, elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT licenses need https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59 nothttps://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62 be duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations. Note the above. When I read the Apache 2.0, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause, and MIT licenses, they all state this: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Doesn't that mean that the copyright notice is required? Yes, but it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations. Copyright notices have been *relocated* from source files have to go into NOTICE. The copyright notice in the license has not been relocated, so it is still in the license text. Again, I'm an engineers, so I'm not sure how to interpret this language. I'm just trying to get a release out. Thanks, James On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.orgwrote: Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file? On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.comwrote: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread -- I have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives. The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the complete text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it is not forbidden, either. The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices. Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and they should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for additional explanation: http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a Because the file is named NOTICE, people tend to think it's for anything notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back over and over like a weed... Best, Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 26 March 2014 19:59, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. Thanks, James * NOTICE ** Apache Phoenix (Incubating) Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). In addition, this product includes the following software: The following lines are almost certainly not necessary. JLine (http://jline.sourceforge.net/), Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Marc Prud'hommeaux m...@cornell.edu SQLLine (https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/), Copyright (c) 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Marc Prud'hommeaux Copyright (c) 2004-2010 The Eigenbase Project Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Julian Hyde SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/), Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch ANTLR (http://www.antlr.org/), Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terrence Parr. Snappy (http://code.google.com/p/snappy/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. JAnsi (http://jansi.fusesource.org/) Copyright (c) 2009-2013 FuseSource, Corp HawtJNI (http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/) Copyright (C) 2009-2011 FuseSource Corp. Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org/) Copyright (c) 2007- Tatu Saloranta, tatu.salora...@iki.fi Protobuf (https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. Guava (http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. * LICENSE * The Apache License, Version 2.0, also applies to the following bundled libraries: As already mentioned elsethread - and in the web-page - please quote the VERSIONS of the bundled software. Licenses may change between versions. JAnsi, http://jansi.fusesource.org/ HawtJNI, http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/ Jackson, http://jackson.codehaus.org/ Guava, http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/ == BSD Clause 3/New BSD License, applies to the following bundled libraries: Again, VERSIONS are needed Snappy, http://code.google.com/p/snappy/ Protobuf, https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ SQLLine, https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/ Full license included below: -- BSD Clause 3/New BSD License Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the organization nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. == BSD Clause 2 License, applies to the following bundled libraries: Again, VERSIONS are needed JLine, http://jline.sourceforge.net/ ANTLR, http://www.antlr.org/ Full license included below: -- The BSD 2-Clause License Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Thanks, Sebb. I added the version info and the copyright to the LICENSE file and based on feedback from Marvin removed the copyright info from our NOTICE file. See this thread: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1JdgvRpJXBetp9xCgOfE7CEwvnaVcxeE%3D-q3mNMRQqC2vTA%40mail.gmail.com%3E On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:38 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 March 2014 19:59, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part). Would appreciate a review. Thanks, James * NOTICE ** Apache Phoenix (Incubating) Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). In addition, this product includes the following software: The following lines are almost certainly not necessary. JLine (http://jline.sourceforge.net/), Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Marc Prud'hommeaux m...@cornell.edu SQLLine (https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/), Copyright (c) 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Marc Prud'hommeaux Copyright (c) 2004-2010 The Eigenbase Project Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Julian Hyde SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/), Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch ANTLR (http://www.antlr.org/), Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terrence Parr. Snappy (http://code.google.com/p/snappy/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. JAnsi (http://jansi.fusesource.org/) Copyright (c) 2009-2013 FuseSource, Corp HawtJNI (http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/) Copyright (C) 2009-2011 FuseSource Corp. Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org/) Copyright (c) 2007- Tatu Saloranta, tatu.salora...@iki.fi Protobuf (https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. Guava (http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/) Copyright 2008 Google Inc. * LICENSE * The Apache License, Version 2.0, also applies to the following bundled libraries: As already mentioned elsethread - and in the web-page - please quote the VERSIONS of the bundled software. Licenses may change between versions. JAnsi, http://jansi.fusesource.org/ HawtJNI, http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/ Jackson, http://jackson.codehaus.org/ Guava, http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/ == BSD Clause 3/New BSD License, applies to the following bundled libraries: Again, VERSIONS are needed Snappy, http://code.google.com/p/snappy/ Protobuf, https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/ SQLLine, https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/ Full license included below: -- BSD Clause 3/New BSD License Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * Neither the name of the organization nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS AS IS AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL COPYRIGHT HOLDER BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. == BSD Clause 2 License, applies to the following bundled libraries: Again, VERSIONS are needed JLine, http://jline.sourceforge.net/ ANTLR, http://www.antlr.org/ Full license included below: -- The BSD 2-Clause License Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1.
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
+1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Hi everyone, This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release. New features include: - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join - Shared tables over same physical HBase table - Read-only and updatable views - Multi-tenancy - JDBC ARRAY type - Sequence creation and usage The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be found at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The binary artifacts can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/ Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc KEYS file available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS The tag to be voted upon: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 For information about the contents of this release see: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 Release notes https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145styleName=TextprojectId=12315120Create=Createatl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, James -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Can you update your notice file? [1] - John [1]: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Devaraj Das d...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Hi everyone, This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release. New features include: - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join - Shared tables over same physical HBase table - Read-only and updatable views - Multi-tenancy - JDBC ARRAY type - Sequence creation and usage The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be found at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The binary artifacts can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/ Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc KEYS file available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS The tag to be voted upon: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 For information about the contents of this release see: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 Release notes https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145styleName=TextprojectId=12315120Create=Createatl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, James -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 18:11, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Can you update your notice file? [1] Please don't; that does not look like a correct NOTICE file. See http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.) - John [1]: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Devaraj Das d...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Hi everyone, This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release. New features include: - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join - Shared tables over same physical HBase table - Read-only and updatable views - Multi-tenancy - JDBC ARRAY type - Sequence creation and usage The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be found at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The binary artifacts can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/ Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc KEYS file available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS The tag to be voted upon: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 For information about the contents of this release see: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 Release notes https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145styleName=TextprojectId=12315120Create=Createatl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, James -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Hi everyone, This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release. New features include: - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join - Shared tables over same physical HBase table - Read-only and updatable views - Multi-tenancy - JDBC ARRAY type - Sequence creation and usage The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be found at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. The binary artifacts can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/ The binary NOTICE file appears to include unnecessary items. Please see: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.) Does the binary bundle actually include the bits from SQLline/SLF4J/ANTLR/JUnit ? If not, they must NOT be in the NOTICE file. If so, then the license files must be included in - or locally linked from - the LICENSE file It _may_ be necessary to mention some of them in the NOTICE file - this depends on the exact license conditions. Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc KEYS file available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS The canonical location should be shown as https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/phoenix/KEYS since that is where the download page should link the KEYS file from. [Not a blocker for the release contents per se, but please fix before announcing the release] The tag to be voted upon: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 I could not work out how to download a tarball/zip of this specific tag used to create the source release. I tried starting at the git url above. I then clicked on the object hash, and clicked on snapshot on the resulting page. However the resulting download had some differences from the source bundle, so either the tag or the source bundle has been modified. Also, are Git tags immutable, or can they be deleted/replaced? If not immutable, please provide an immutable attribute such as the tag hash. It's important to be able to tie the source code to the source code control system (SCCS), since the SCCS contents are what has been validated by the PPMC. For information about the contents of this release see: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 Release notes https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145styleName=TextprojectId=12315120Create=Createatl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
What do you mean? That was Phoenix's file I was linking to. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 18:11, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Can you update your notice file? [1] Please don't; that does not look like a correct NOTICE file. See http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.) - John [1]: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Devaraj Das d...@hortonworks.com wrote: +1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Hi everyone, This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release. New features include: - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join - Shared tables over same physical HBase table - Read-only and updatable views - Multi-tenancy - JDBC ARRAY type - Sequence creation and usage The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be found at: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The binary artifacts can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/ Release artifacts are signed with the following key: https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc KEYS file available here: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS The tag to be voted upon: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 For information about the contents of this release see: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1 Release notes https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145styleName=TextprojectId=12315120Create=Createatl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote: [ ] +1 approve [ ] +0 no opinion [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) Thanks, James -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 18:56, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: What do you mean? That was Phoenix's file I was linking to. I realise that the file is in the Phoenix Git and is called NOTICE. However it is not a valid NOTICE file according to: [0] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.) The header is wrong. The second paragraph should be developed at not developed by. etc - please read the page mentioned above [0] The file at [1] does not appear to be the same as the NOTICE file in the tag [2] which contains the following contents that looks fine (assuming there are no 3rd party source files that need attribution in the NOTICE file) Apache Phoenix (Incubating) Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). The source archive that is the subject of this vote has the same contents. As such, replacing its NOTICE with [1] would be a mistake. The proposed NOTICE does not look correct for the binary bundle either, as explained elsethread (and in [0]) [2] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=commit;h=025a07c64d8f4a68d1c13b3022fe7375bbacfbb4 On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 18:11, John D. Ament john.d.am...@gmail.com wrote: Can you update your notice file? [1] Please don't; that does not look like a correct NOTICE file. See http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.) - John [1]: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating $ find . -name target (no results) $ find . -name '*.txt' ./bin/readme.txt $ cd .. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha [...] fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? In the source bundle. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz That's the binary bundle. $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating $ find . -name target (no results) $ find . -name '*.txt' ./bin/readme.txt $ cd .. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha [...] fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require a new RC? On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? In the source bundle. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz That's the binary bundle. $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating $ find . -name target (no results) $ find . -name '*.txt' ./bin/readme.txt $ cd .. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha [...] fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require a new RC? If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error. But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE file. And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in that regard. It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to the source code control system. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? In the source bundle. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz That's the binary bundle. $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating $ find . -name target (no results) $ find . -name '*.txt' ./bin/readme.txt $ cd .. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha [...] fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8 phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
James, Mujtaba, et. al., Can we add a Releasing page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the tarballs, etc. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require a new RC? If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error. But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE file. And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in that regard. It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to the source code control system. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? In the source bundle. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz That's the binary bundle. -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a README file is included instead. For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution? Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle? Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change? FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well). Thanks, James [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: James, Mujtaba, et. al., Can we add a Releasing page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the tarballs, etc. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require a new RC? If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error. But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE file. And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in that regard. It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to the source code control system. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? In the source bundle. $ wget https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz That's the binary bundle. -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle Yes. b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) OK - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license. - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a README file is included instead. The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation should be included. For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution? Not sure what you are proposing. The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle agrees with the tag. Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released under the Apache License. Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle? Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change? See above. FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well). Thanks, James [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: James, Mujtaba, et. al., Can we add a Releasing page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the tarballs, etc. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require a new RC? If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error. But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE file. And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in that regard. It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to the source code control system. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: [...] The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/ The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git. There should be no target directories in the source bundle, and no Rat.txt files. Where are those? In the source bundle. $ wget
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license. We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file. Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file? Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct? Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3. Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1]. Thanks, James [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle Yes. b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) OK - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license. - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a README file is included instead. The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation should be included. For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution? Not sure what you are proposing. The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle agrees with the tag. Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released under the Apache License. Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle? Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change? See above. FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well). Thanks, James [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: James, Mujtaba, et. al., Can we add a Releasing page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the tarballs, etc. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there. Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require a new RC? If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error. But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE file. And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in that regard.
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
This probably belongs in a [DISCUSS] more than in a [VOTE] thread, but in response to Andrew's comment: Can we add a Releasing page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. ...I was wondering if this might be useful: https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Releasing%20jclouds. I recall it took us a couple of RCs to fine-tune, too. ap
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license. We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file. Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file? Depends on its license. Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - and indeed also contain phoenix code. That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party code with ASF code in a single jar. Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly other dependency management systems. That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct? As I already wrote, not necessarily. You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the LICENSE file or locally linked from it. Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file. See for example http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3. But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what license. again, see http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1]. As am I ... Thanks, James [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle Yes. b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) OK - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license. - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a README file is included instead. The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation should be included. For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution? Not sure what you are proposing. The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle agrees with the tag. Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released under the Apache License. Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle? Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change? See above. FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well). Thanks, James [1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: James, Mujtaba, et. al., Can we add
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Ah, I see. Thanks, Sebb. So we should modify our LICENSE file as indicated in http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps instead of listing these in our LICENSE file. Since all licenses are either Apache or BSD, this should be fine. I'm still a bit confused about one thing, though. The above link says add a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree. For sqlline, we bundle it, but have no source dependencies on it. It's used as a command line terminal interface. Is this pointer optional then? We could point to the python script that invokes it - would that be correct? For our HBase dependencies, we have many places in the source that call HBase APIs. Do we just list one of them? On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license. We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file. Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file? Depends on its license. Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - and indeed also contain phoenix code. That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party code with ASF code in a single jar. Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly other dependency management systems. That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct? As I already wrote, not necessarily. You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the LICENSE file or locally linked from it. Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file. See for example http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3. But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what license. again, see http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1]. As am I ... Thanks, James [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle Yes. b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) OK - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license. - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a README file is included instead. The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation should be included. For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution? Not sure what you are proposing. The RC reviewers need to be
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
(sorry, meant instead of listing these in our NOTICE file) On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.orgwrote: Ah, I see. Thanks, Sebb. So we should modify our LICENSE file as indicated in http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps instead of listing these in our LICENSE file. Since all licenses are either Apache or BSD, this should be fine. I'm still a bit confused about one thing, though. The above link says add a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree. For sqlline, we bundle it, but have no source dependencies on it. It's used as a command line terminal interface. Is this pointer optional then? We could point to the python script that invokes it - would that be correct? For our HBase dependencies, we have many places in the source that call HBase APIs. Do we just list one of them? On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license. We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file. Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file? Depends on its license. Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - and indeed also contain phoenix code. That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party code with ASF code in a single jar. Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly other dependency management systems. That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct? As I already wrote, not necessarily. You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the LICENSE file or locally linked from it. Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file. See for example http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3. But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what license. again, see http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1]. As am I ... Thanks, James [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle Yes. b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) OK - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license. - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a README file is included instead. The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation should be included. For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 25 March 2014 23:48, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Ah, I see. Thanks, Sebb. So we should modify our LICENSE file as indicated in http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps instead of listing these in our LICENSE file. Since all licenses are either Apache or BSD, this should be fine. I'm still a bit confused about one thing, though. The above link says add a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree. For sqlline, we bundle it, but have no source dependencies on it. It's used as a command line terminal interface. Is this pointer optional then? We could point to the python script that invokes it - would that be correct? AFAIK the pointer is to the _license_, as shown in the example beneath. [I'll see about clarifying that] Since the BSD license is so short, you may prefer to include in the LICENSE file itself rather than creating a separate file and pointing to that. If several products have the identical license, just list them together. Please include the 3rd party version details (as per the example); it's not unknown for licenses to change between versions. For our HBase dependencies, we have many places in the source that call HBase APIs. Do we just list one of them? HBase is ASF code surely? So why does it need mentioning? - unless its NOTICE file has some attributions that relate to what you are bundling On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license. We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file. Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file? Depends on its license. Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - and indeed also contain phoenix code. That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party code with ASF code in a single jar. Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly other dependency management systems. That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct? As I already wrote, not necessarily. You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the LICENSE file or locally linked from it. Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file. See for example http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3. But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what license. again, see http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1]. As am I ... Thanks, James [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us: 1) In the binary bundle: a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1]. It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in the NOTICE file. Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct. b) Change developed by to developed at in the NOTICE file c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled with our binary distribution. Are you sure? Even JUnit and ANTLR? Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry. 2) In the source bundle: a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src bundle Yes. b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not reflected in git: - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so should not be included in our git repo) OK - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle. Not OK. - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked into git. The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag. The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source bundle contains only
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: HBase is ASF code surely? So why does it need mentioning? - unless its NOTICE file has some attributions that relate to what you are bundling Yes, HBase is ASF code. The other stuff we've listed are the transitive dependencies of HBase. Do we list then only the non ASF transitive dependencies in our LICENSE file? I think I was confused by the http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-deps instructions. Would it be ok if I attached a modified LICENSE file for review here? Our NOTICE file will be modified to include only the bare minimum as described here: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple Thanks, James
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 26 March 2014 00:23, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: HBase is ASF code surely? So why does it need mentioning? - unless its NOTICE file has some attributions that relate to what you are bundling Yes, HBase is ASF code. The other stuff we've listed are the transitive dependencies of HBase. Do we list then only the non ASF transitive dependencies in our LICENSE file? I think I was confused by the http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-deps instructions. What is confusing about that? If it is not clear, how could it be made clearer? Would it be ok if I attached a modified LICENSE file for review here? Please don't include the full license text. Just include what you propose to append to the standard AL 2.0 file. Our NOTICE file will be modified to include only the bare minimum as described here: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple That's fine provided that there are no requirements for attribution, . Remember also that the NOTICE (and LICENSE) files relate to the bits that are bundled so may be different for source and binary releases. Thanks, James - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - and indeed also contain phoenix code. That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party code with ASF code in a single jar. Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly other dependency management systems. I believe this is done because Phoenix is a JDBC client, and JDBC drivers are usually packaged as single JARs for convenience. James could confirm or refute. I concluded this is acceptable practice having seen it elsewhere at Apache, for example in Apache Pig, their convenience fatjar artifact. -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 March 2014 00:23, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: I think I was confused by the http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-depsinstructions. What is confusing about that? If it is not clear, how could it be made clearer? The instructions are clear. It's just not simple to get right. Maybe it's just one of those things you have to do wrong once. Maybe a simple end-2-end example would help for a example project with both: - a non ASF dependency and - an ASF dependency that include a non ASF dependency
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've bundled in our binary distribution. I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries. They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code - and indeed also contain phoenix code. That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code. It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party code with ASF code in a single jar. Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly other dependency management systems. I believe this is done because Phoenix is a JDBC client, and JDBC drivers are usually packaged as single JARs for convenience. James could confirm or refute. I concluded this is acceptable practice having seen it elsewhere at Apache, for example in Apache Pig, their convenience fatjar artifact. Yes, that's correct. It's because then a third-party tool (such as a SQL client GUI) then only need to pull in a single jar to be able to connect through the Phoenix JDBC driver to HBase. Our initial (pre-Apache) releases didn't do this and it was almost impossible to get the classpath correct for the minimal client-side dependencies. So the remaining question: should we spin up a new RC for these changes and if so, should we go through a vote again on our dev list as well? Thanks again for all the help. James
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
On 26 March 2014 00:39, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 March 2014 00:23, James Taylor jamestay...@apache.org wrote: I think I was confused by the http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-depsinstructions. What is confusing about that? If it is not clear, how could it be made clearer? The instructions are clear. It's just not simple to get right. Maybe it's just one of those things you have to do wrong once. Maybe a simple end-2-end example would help for a example project with both: - a non ASF dependency and - an ASF dependency that include a non ASF dependency Dependencies are irrelevant. Only the actual contents of the bundle matter. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
