b) We don't need a separate NOTICE/LICENSE file for binary package, it > should be same for both src and binary distribution. > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
I think for binary, you need to have stuff in the notice file. The licensing how-to is mostly concerned with bundled source, which has the license in the file anyhow. Binary is different so should be treated separately. Only have phone until Monday, so won't be able to confirm til then, but there a legal/licensing mailing list that helps with this kind of thing. -Ivan > Sent a PR for this proposed change: > https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/820 > > - Sijie > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Probably not. Findbugs isn't needed for sure. Some others look like code > > generation. The binary packages need separate notices though, as they > > schools only contain what they're legally obliged to. > > > > On Wed 6 Dec 2017, 18:10 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I did the original notice file update, I will update. Some of these > > > dependencies might not be needed actually. > > > > > > - Sijie > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Ivan Kelly <iv...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > -1 from me unfortunately. > > > > > > > > There are a lot of files in lib/ the bookkeeper-all which aren't > > > > covered in the notice: > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar > > > > com.twitter-jsr166e-1.0.0.jar > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar > > > > com.twitter-libthrift-0.5.0-7.jar > > > > com.twitter-scrooge-core_2.11-4.16.0.jar > > > > com.twitter-twitter-server_2.11-1.29.0.jar > > > > javax.inject-javax.inject-1.jar > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar > > > > > > > > Bookkeeper-server notice doesn't cover: > > > > com.google.code.findbugs-jsr305-3.0.2.jar > > > > com.google.errorprone-error_prone_annotations-2.1.2.jar > > > > javax.servlet-javax.servlet-api-3.1.0.jar > > > > > > > > Don't use the lists above as a basis to fix though. Whoever is > > > > updating should doublecheck that the NOTICE files cover everything in > > > > lib. We're going to need a different NOTICE for bookkeeper-server and > > > > bookkeeper-all also. It's probably worth getting maven to try and > > > > generate these files for us. > > > > > > > > > > Otherwise everything looks good. > > > > 1. checksums and signature checked out > > > > 2. findbugs, rat, and tests ran cleanly > > > > 3. Jepsen tests passed > > > > > > > > The other thing that's needed for the next RC is that the breaks in > > > > the API (around thrown exceptions), need to be noted clearly and > > > > loudly in the release notes. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Jia Zhai <zhaiji...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks a lot Enrico for the verification, especially for the notes. > > > Would > > > > > you please also help open some issues on github to track your > > findings > > > > and > > > > > suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Enrico Olivelli < > > eolive...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> +1 (non binding) > > > > >> looks good to me > > > > >> > > > > >> - Built and tested candidate source tar ball > > > > >> - Run Bookie and basic Bookie shel commands from the "dist all" > > > package > > > > >> - Checked tag on GitHub > > > > >> - All tests are passing on my downstream projects (some of them > need > > > > >> re-compiling or minor changes) > > > > >> > > > > >> Thank you Jia for driving this and to every body, I expect great > > > > >> improvements in production > > > > >> > > > > >> Notes: > > > > >> > > > > >> 1) There is a failing test on my dev machine, even on master. I > > think > > > > this > > > > >> is not blocker for the release. It must be some problem on my > > machine: > > > > >> > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile(org.apache. > > > > >> bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest) > > > > >> Time elapsed: 12.871 sec <<< FAILURE! > > > > >> java.lang.AssertionError: Bookie should be up and running > > > > >> at > > > > >> org.apache.bookkeeper.bookie.BookieInitializationTest. > > > > >> testWithDiskFullAndAbilityToCreateNewIndexFile( > > > > >> BookieInitializationTest.java:602) > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 2) NOTICE reports very old copyright note (dates to 2015) -> we > > should > > > > >> check this on every file, not just this one, it is not a problem I > > > think > > > > >> > > > > >> 3) EnsemblePlacementPolicy changed signatures of methods -> > compile > > > time > > > > >> issue on downstream projects, I already knew, not a problem. I > will > > > not > > > > >> create any issue. > > > > >> > > > > >> 4) BookKeeper.Builder#build -> now throws BKException -> compile > > time > > > > issue > > > > >> on downstream projects, but it is not a showstopper. I wlil not > > create > > > > any > > > > >> issue. This was expected. > > > > >> > > > > >> 5) Dropped dependency on commons collections -> so this > disappeared > > > from > > > > >> downstream projects -> it is not a real problem, downstream > project > > > must > > > > >> explicitly declare their own dependencies, it is not a BK problem. > > > > >> > > > > >> 6) We have better "BKException#getMessage", this has some impact > on > > > test > > > > >> cases of downstream projects -> it is not a problem, I consider > > this a > > > > bug > > > > >> on downstream projects, testcases should be more robust as BK > > provides > > > > >> typed Exceptions > > > > >> > > > > >> Enrico > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> 2017-12-05 6:19 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai <zhai...@apache.org>: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi everyone, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Please review and vote on the release candidate #0 for the > version > > > > >> > 4.6.0, as follows: > > > > >> > [ ] +1, Approve the release > > > > >> > [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific > > > comments) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The complete staging area is available for your review, which > > > > includes: > > > > >> > * Release notes [1] > > > > >> > * The official Apache source and binary distributions to be > > deployed > > > > >> > to dist.apache.org [2] > > > > >> > * All artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository > [3] > > > > >> > * Source code tag "release-4.6.0" [4] > > > > >> > > > > > >> > BookKeeper's KEYS file contains PGP keys we used to sign this > > > > >> > release:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/ > > bookkeeper/KEYS > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Please download these packages and review this release > candidate: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > - Review release notes > > > > >> > - Download the source package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and > > > follow > > > > >> the > > > > >> > instructions to build and run the bookkeeper service. > > > > >> > - Download the binary package (verify md5, shasum, and asc) and > > > follow > > > > >> the > > > > >> > instructions to run the bookkeeper service. > > > > >> > - Review maven repo, release tag, licenses, and any other things > > you > > > > >> think > > > > >> > it is important to a release. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted by > > > majority > > > > >> > approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Jia Zhai > > > > >> > > > > > >> > [1] *https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759 > > > > >> > <https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/pull/759>* > > > > >> > [2] *https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/ > > > > >> > bookkeeper-4.6.0-rc0/ > > > > >> > <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/bookkeeper/bookkeepe > > > > r-4.6.0-rc0/ > > > > >> >* > > > > >> > [3] https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > > > > >> > orgapachebookkeeper-1021/ > > > > >> > [4] https://github.com/apache/bookkeeper/tree/release-4.6.0 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
