Congrats to every one!
Thank you Jia
I am really happy that wr have released a brand new API!
Enrico
Il sab 23 dic 2017, 02:14 Sijie Guo ha scritto:
> Congrats, Jia!
>
> (Technically you need to include your vote as well)
>
> - Sijie
>
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Jia Zhai wrote:
>
> >
Congrats, Jia!
(Technically you need to include your vote as well)
- Sijie
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Jia Zhai wrote:
> I’m happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release.
>
>
> There are 4 approving votes, 3 of which are binding:
>
> * Enrico Olivelli(no-binding)
>
> *
Thanks everyone for your help on the voting. will close this vote and send
out a vote result for this.
On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:48 AM, David Rusek wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> verified signatures, build, and standalone,
>
> -Dave
>
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote:
>
> > +1 (bi
I’m happy to announce that we have unanimously approved this release.
There are 4 approving votes, 3 of which are binding:
* Enrico Olivelli(no-binding)
* Sijie Guo(binding)
* Ivan Kelly(binding)
* David Rusek(binding)
There are no disapproving votes.
Thanks everyone!
+1 (binding)
verified signatures, build, and standalone,
-Dave
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:37 AM, Ivan Kelly wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> 1) Notices and licenses look good to me (some minor issues, but not
> enough to hold up release)
> 2) md5, sha1, sig look good
> 3) findbugs, rat and tests pass
+1 (binding)
1) Notices and licenses look good to me (some minor issues, but not
enough to hold up release)
2) md5, sha1, sig look good
3) findbugs, rat and tests pass
4) Jepsen test passes (exercise both client and bin package)
Env: Debian 9
Good work Jia!
-Ivan
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:13 AM
>> The license covers binary and source form, so we should adhere to the
>> original license, which is 3 clause BSD.
>
> I don't think we should be in the business of checking whether it volatiles
> 3 clause BSD license or not.
> The dependency that we pulled in is a bundled binary, which we should
+1 (binding)
1) notices, licenses look good to me (I can be biased since I made that
change)
2) md5, signature look good
3) binary package looks good (run standalone)
4) source package looks good (compile, test and run standalone)
5) artifactory, tag look good
Environment: OSX
On Mon, Dec 18, 20
Il mar 19 dic 2017, 02:13 Jia Zhai ha scritto:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
> 4.6.0, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
+1
run tests from src package
Checked
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
4.6.0, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
This new release candidate mainly fixed the license issue, also removed
bookkeeper-all package for i
Please ignore this email. it has been cancelled, and a new voting email has
been sent. Thanks.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Jia Zhai wrote:
> Thanks for the help.
> Since bookkeeper-all package contains jars whose license are unclear,
> would like to cancel this vote thread and will remove b
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
4.6.0, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
This new release candidate mainly fixed the license issue, also removed
bookkeeper-all package for i
Thanks for the help.
Since bookkeeper-all package contains jars whose license are unclear, would
like to cancel this vote thread and will remove bookkeeper-all in the new
vote thread. The new thread will keep the same rc number.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Sijie Guo wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18,
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ivan Kelly wrote:
> >> The pom says ASL, but the pom points to a site where you can get the
> >> original source. It can only be downloaded from a zip from there. The
> >> zip, which is the only source for this that I could find, is BSD 3
> >> clause.
> >>
> >
> >
>> The pom says ASL, but the pom points to a site where you can get the
>> original source. It can only be downloaded from a zip from there. The
>> zip, which is the only source for this that I could find, is BSD 3
>> clause.
>>
>
> We do not bundle the source. We bundle the published jar, which is
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Ivan Kelly wrote:
> >> Isn't this ASFv2?
> >> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.google.code.findbugs/jsr305
> No, check out the pom.
>
> http://central.maven.org/maven2/com/google/code/
> findbugs/jsr305/2.0.3/jsr305-2.0.3.pom
>
> The pom says ASL, but the p
Here's the source:
https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-source/v2/code.google.com/jsr-305/source-archive.zip
-Ivan
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Ivan Kelly wrote:
>>> Isn't this ASFv2?
>>> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.google.code.findbugs/jsr305
> No, check out the pom
>> Isn't this ASFv2?
>> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.google.code.findbugs/jsr305
No, check out the pom.
http://central.maven.org/maven2/com/google/code/findbugs/jsr305/2.0.3/jsr305-2.0.3.pom
The pom says ASL, but the pom points to a site where you can get the
original source. It can onl
Oh, Thanks you guys. Seems it is Apache 2.0 as Sijie mentioned. @Ivan,
Would you please help confirm it?
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Sijie Guo wrote:
> Isn't this ASFv2?
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.google.code.findbugs/jsr305
>
> Sijie
>
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2017 7:20 AM, "Ivan Ke
Isn't this ASFv2?
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.google.code.findbugs/jsr305
Sijie
On Dec 18, 2017 7:20 AM, "Ivan Kelly" wrote:
-1 again I'm afraid. The JSR305 jar is unaccounted for. Source code is
hard to track down, but it turn up at
https://code.google.com/archive/p/jsr-305/source
It is ASLv2. Please check maven:
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.twitter/libthrift/0.5.0-7
Sijie
On Dec 18, 2017 7:47 AM, "Ivan Kelly" wrote:
Also, I can't find the source for libthrift. It seems to be a twitter
fork of the original apache libthrift, but there's nothing on
twitter's gith
Also, I can't find the source for libthrift. It seems to be a twitter
fork of the original apache libthrift, but there's nothing on
twitter's github. It is presumably ASL, but there's nothing to confirm
this.
-Ivan
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:22 PM, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> 2017-12-18 16:20 GMT+01
2017-12-18 16:20 GMT+01:00 Ivan Kelly :
> -1 again I'm afraid. The JSR305 jar is unaccounted for. Source code is
> hard to track down, but it turn up at
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/jsr-305/source/default/source
>
> This jar is New BSD licensed, but also has some files under Creative
> comm
-1 again I'm afraid. The JSR305 jar is unaccounted for. Source code is
hard to track down, but it turn up at
https://code.google.com/archive/p/jsr-305/source/default/source
This jar is New BSD licensed, but also has some files under Creative
commons Attribution License, though they don't mention t
2017-12-18 2:00 GMT+01:00 Jia Zhai :
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
> 4.6.0, as follows:
> [ ] +1, Approve the release
> [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
+1 (non binding)
Run tests from source package
C
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #2 for the version
4.6.0, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
This new release candidate mainly fixed the license issue.
The complete staging area is available f
26 matches
Mail list logo
