> On May 11, 2018, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > > My understanding is that we have confirmed there are Cat-X files in the > release. I don't believe we can approve a release going out with known > Cat-X files. > > Justin, Dave, thoughts? I'd be happy to switch my vote if there's a shared > understanding.
My thoughts are: (1) Incubating podlings have a DISCLAIMER for a reason. I would suggest that the podling share that there are minimal licensing issues that anyone planning on depending on this release in a commercial setting should be aware. (2) I am confident that these will be removed and then brought brought back once licensed properly. (3) We took a long time reviewing this and I would rather have the podling move ahead. (4) The Incubator has been lenient on first release in the past. If others disagree then please say so by Monday. Regards, Dave > > John > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:11 AM Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org> wrote: > >> The only copyrights in LICENSE are related to BSD, W3C, and OGF >> licenses. My understanding is that it is optional to add the copyrights >> of these permissive licenses to the NOTICE [1]. And it's actually >> preferred to not add them so as to keep the NOTICE as small as possible. >> Maybe my understanding of this is wrong? >> >> Regarding RPM diff, I've looked at the RPM vs tgz daffodil jars and the >> internal class files all have the same md5sum. Doing a binary diff, it >> looks like the only differences is the file modification time of the >> class files--the contents are the same. I suspect the sbt plugin >> building our rpm is moving files around or something and changing the >> modification time, even though the file content isn't changing. We'll >> look into this for the next release and see if it's something we can >> fix. These jars really should have the same hash. >> >> The other issues we plan the resolve in the next release. >> >> Thanks, >> - Steve >> >> [1] https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps >> >> >> >> On 05/10/2018 07:42 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: >>> Hi - >>> >>> +1 (binding) with a couple of areas for improvement. >>> >>> Source - hashes and signatures are good. >>> >>> I’m finally reviewing this release and in looking at the NOTICE and >> LICENSE >>> there are many copyrights/required notices that are in the LICENSE >> instead of >>> the NOTICE. Breaking these apart properly is difficult, but needs to be >> done >>> before your next release. >>> >>> RAT Check: >>> >> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/util/UniquenessCache.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/numerics/package.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/package.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/SmallUInt.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UByte.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UInt.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/ULong.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/Unsigned.scala >>> ./daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/unsigned/UShort.scala >>> I recognize that all of these have headers that have been copied to the >> LICENSE. >>> >>> Binaries - hashes and signatures are good. >>> LICENSE and NOTICE are more correct in the Binaries than the Source. >>> Tgz and Zip unpack identical project jars, but for the NPM they are the >> same >>> size but diff reports they are not identical. I’m going to think of this >> as an >>> artifact of how I unpacked rpm2cpio | cpio >>> >>> TO DO: >>> (1) Fix Source NOTICE and LICENSE >>> (2) Handle the 2 test files. >>> (3) Improve Rat Check. Probably by including sbt-rat in project with >>> addSbtPlugin("org.musigma" % "sbt-rat" % "0.5.1”) and updating >> .rat-excludes. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:39 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org >>>> <mailto:johndam...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Justin/Steve, >>>> >>>> Apologies as its very confusing looking at this email thread trying to >>>> understand what the current state of the vote is. >>>> >>>> From what I understand: >>>> >>>> - Two files were included in the release that are Cat-X >>>> - These were supposed to be relicensed, but doesn't sound like that >> happened >>>> >>>> Or was it corrected that these two files are UoI NCSA licensed? If >> these >>>> files are Cat-X I would also vote a -1 since we cannot release with >> clear >>>> Cat-X contents (we can release with Cat-X dependencies, but the >> contents can't >>>> be Cat-X). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On 2018/04/30 11:52:22, Steve Lawrence <slawre...@apache.org >>>> <mailto:slawre...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> We are still need at least one more +1. We'd really appreciate if if >> you >>>>> could take a look. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> - Steve >>>>> >>>>> On 04/09/2018 07:24 PM, Steve Lawrence wrote: >>>>>> The Apache Daffodil community has voted and approved the proposed >>>>>> release of Apache Daffodil (incubating) 2.1.0-rc3. >>>>>> >>>>>> We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on >> this >>>>>> incubator release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Daffodil is an open source implementation of the DFDL specification >> that >>>>>> uses DFDL schemas to parse fixed format data into an infoset, which is >>>>>> most commonly represented as either XML or JSON. This allows the use >> of >>>>>> well-established XML or JSON technologies and libraries to consume, >>>>>> inspect, and manipulate fixed format data in existing solutions. >>>>>> Daffodil is also capable of the reverse by serializing or "unparsing" >> an >>>>>> XML or JSON infoset back to the original data format. >>>>>> >>>>>> Vote thread: >>>>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/10811e8f520bf100a9250a3ae0610633e9018e0ae8fc422e2c0f097a@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E >>>>>> >>>>>> Result thread: >>>>>> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/54a3e681b25f084e0dc46e19764cd19507ff502b927516093a3bd667@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E >>>>>> >>>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be >>>>>> found at: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc3/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Staging artifacts can be found at: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1002/ >>>>>> >>>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to >>>>>> slawre...@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS >> file. >>>>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661 >>>>>> >>>>>> It is also listed here: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc >>>>>> >>>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc3. >>>>>> >>>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0: >>>>>> >>>>>> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC >>>>>> >>>>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >>>>>> >>>>>> [ ] +1 approve >>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion >>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why) >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> - Steve >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>>> <mailto:general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org> >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>>> <mailto:general-h...@incubator.apache.org> >>>> >>> >> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
