And by the way, since this would be Quickstep’s first release under incubation, I gave them some leniency in my RC5 vote [1] on the dev list. I called out 2 showstopper issues, which they fixed in RC6, and some other issues that they are going to fix in release 0.2.
(Being a mentor is very much being like a parent… good parents are lenient at times, but it’s hard for parents to agree on what to be lenient about.) Julian [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c31c994a092d5fa33d216b3919100f3d8392559eacab268f3ccb1455@%3Cdev.quickstep.apache.org%3E <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c31c994a092d5fa33d216b3919100f3d8392559eacab268f3ccb1455@%3Cdev.quickstep.apache.org%3E> > On Mar 16, 2017, at 4:42 PM, Josh Elser <els...@apache.org> wrote: > > Given this is Quickstep's first release, yes, I think I could be persuaded to > make this a +1 given LEGAL-291 :) > > I don't want to cause more confusion if you've already started re-rolling > things, Marc. > > John D. Ament wrote: >> So, knowing that some of the files are explained under LEGAL-291, would you >> consider changing your vote? While there are some changes to the LICENSE >> file, its not a killer (since a user would see the correct licenses in the >> source files). >> >> I'd vote a +1 if there's a JIRA covering the fixes. I would vote -1 if >> that JIRA isn't fixed for the next release. >> >> Here's a link to how to assemble the LICENSE contents, in case you need it: >> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps >> >> John >> >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 6:49 PM Josh Elser<els...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> Marc Spehlmann wrote: >>>> Thank you for reviewing Apache Quickstep 0.1.0 rc6 (incubating), >>> everyone. >>>> With this I will close the vote. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> Julian (binding) >>>> Jignesh >>>> >>>> -1 >>>> Josh (binding) >>>> >>>> As we received one -1 binding vote, we will not release rc6. >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> >>>> The biggest issue seems to be our licensing checks. >>>> >>>> Now Fixed: >>>> - third_party/src/cpplint/lint_everything.py >>>> - ./parser/preprocessed/genfiles.sh >>>> - ./query_execution/ForemanDistributed.cpp (not sure about the origin >>> of >>>> this and the following three) >>>> - ./query_execution/ForemanDistributed.hpp >>>> - ./query_execution/PolicyEnforcerDistributed.cpp >>>> - ./query_execution/PolicyEnforcerDistributed.hpp >>>> - We checked the KEYS in the svn repo against the signed artifact and >>> the >>>> sig is fine, it was just my info which was old on the people.apache site >>> -> >>>> now updated. >>>> - Our website has been updated to include the logo and reword "apache >>>> quickstep (incubating)". >>>> >>>> In progress: >>>> - We're reviewing what exactly goes in LICENSE/NOTICE files and will fix >>>> them for the next release. >>> Feel free to ping if you'd like me to look over what you have put >>> together before you spent time on the next RC. I can also provide some >>> other examples of a LICENSE file which would look "similar". >>> >>>> Not Fixed: >>>> - Julian turned us on to a previous issue with pre-processed parser >>>> files. It appears the content in /parser/preprocessed/ should be fine via >>>> discussion on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-291 >>> Thanks for this pointer! I thought something like this might have been >>> the case (but was too lazy to parse it ;)) >>> >>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> Marc >>> - Josh >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >
