On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have > taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very > seriously. > > It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to > be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that our test > data (some of which is necessarily pseudo code) to not need to be licensed > since doing so would break our build and explicit Apache guidelines specify > that in these cases no license header is required — which is precisely why > we excluded them via rat and precisely why those exlusions should be > discussed, not ignored. > The problem though is that rat exclusions are meant to be a sign of things that have been vetted and confirmed as not apache licensed, but still acceptable for inclusion. Most projects I have seen use rat exclusions do it for: - build output, we don't care nor should we care, about the output of a build from the source release - Files that are licensed as other Cat A - Files that can't have a header for technical reasons It is typical that when the IPMC reviews a release, the contents of rat exclusions are checked first, to confirm that nothing is accidentally excluded that shouldn't be, or that it is excluded and properly licensed. I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well.. I want confirm that the list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog. To me, the minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is: - Remove the binary zip files from the source release - Every issue raised by Justin represented in JIRA somewhere - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache license - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from other locations > > Gj > > On Monday, January 22, 2018, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat > > exclusions > > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC > > > members evaluating a release. > > > > Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things. > > I’ve reviewed and voted on 300+ releases on the IPMC list so perhaps I > have > > some advice to give that you should listen to. You can of course choose > to > > ignore it. > > > > > Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot > > simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted > > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based > > on > > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored. > > > > Some of the issues I’ve brought up are minor and can be fixed in later > > releases and some IMO are not and are not in line with ASF licensing or > > release policy. I suggest you try are fix those. > > > > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our > > mentors to advise on their perspective on this too. > > > > That would be a good way forward. As I said said previously your mentors > > can vote +1 on this release - my vote is not a veto. I would be totally > > fine if you got 3 +1 votes from other IPMC members and my vote is the > only > > -1.That’s how Apache works. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
