Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Thanks Ryan I talked with Justin about guidance. As he's VP Legal assistant, he can point to the resources and clarify. I don't consider myself as an expert in LICENSE and NOTICE. My gut feeling is that it's not so clear even if we have pages about that. So maybe worth to clarify/simplify the page

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi everyone, Thanks for all the votes and all the discussions around LICENSE and NOTICE. We really appreciate all the effort. I would like to cancel this RC due to another issue: - Hive Catalog cannot create table with TimestamptzType field · Issue #583

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

I’m glad to see a lively debate about how to handle license and notice content. It’s something that I think we generally want more people to understand and care about because this is a critical part of maintaining an Apache project. I have a few things to add to the conversation, starting with poi

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi Fokko Fully agree, it's always "interpretation" and we are often struggling about NOTICE content (especially during the incubation period). Let me chat with Justin, Shane and others about this to have a clear statement and update the "guide/documentation". Thanks ! Regards JB On Fri, Apr 5, 2

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hey everyone, First of all thanks for all the votes. Regarding the discussion around the NOTICE. We all agree that when something is bundled, it needs to be added to the notice. However, Laynes Law of Debate comes into play: what's the definition of bundling? To e

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi Justin Great. Let’s continue this vote then. NB: it’s not really possible to veto a release anyway, even for a PMC member though :) I will propose a PR as discussion/documentation base, to improve the NOTICE for future releases. Thanks ! Regards JB Le ven. 5 avr. 2024 à 09:07, Justin Mclean

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi, > I think you are right, some 3rd parties (including Apache projects) > are missing in the NOTICE file (you and I already mentioned that in a > previous release). We should at least mention this. I pointed Apache > Karaf NOTICE as example. This is the problem when people copy what other proje

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi Justin I think you are right, some 3rd parties (including Apache projects) are missing in the NOTICE file (you and I already mentioned that in a previous release). We should at least mention this. I pointed Apache Karaf NOTICE as example. I propose to not block releases due to that (as it's li

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi, If you were wondering where all of this comes from, it is from section 4/4d of the Apache license. Kind Regards, Justin

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi, See [1] for why that NOTCE copyright line should be considered -"though the ASF copyright line and any other portions of NOTICE must be considered for propagation.” Kind Regards, Justin 1. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi, You may not be aware that I have voted on 1,000+ releases and helped refine and improve ASF policy on this over the years. I also hold a number of other relevant ASF roles. > There are two main issues with the presented arguments: > > 1. This isn't a bundled dependency, it is an attributio

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

There are two main issues with the presented arguments: 1. This isn't a bundled dependency, it is an attribution of a code snippet taken from another project 2. There is nothing in the NOTICE that would qualify as "relevant portions [to be] bubbled up" You seem to be asserting that this is both a

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi, Also note that that comment you linked to also includes "Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own, it is uncommon for a dependency to require additions to NOTICE.” In this case, you do have Apache-licensed dependencies that do supply a NOTICE file. Ki

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

HI, > The ASF recommendation also clearly states: "Under normal circumstances, > there is no need to modify NOTICE to mention a bundled dependency." If you read that document carefully, it states this: - Under normal circumstances, there is no need to modify NOTICE to mention a bundled dependen

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

+1 (binding) Verified sigs/sums/license/build/test (Python 3.11.6) All checks out, -Dan On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 4:39 PM Hussein Awala wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > - Verified signatures, checksums, and license > - Tested creating and reading a non-partitioned table with the Glue catalog > > On

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Justin, We addressed these questions with regard to LICENSE and NOTICE files in the last release. This comment explains it well, which is why the NOTICE changes were reverted. The ASF recommendation

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

+1 (non-binding) - Verified signatures, checksums, and license - Tested creating and reading a non-partitioned table with the Glue catalog On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 12:44 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > HI, > > Thanks for that. I don't understand "we don't bundle the code, but just > took some part of i

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

HI, Thanks for that. I don't understand "we don't bundle the code, but just took some part of it”. Either the code is in the source release or not in the source release; if any part of it is in the source release, then it is bundled. The LICENSE and NOTICE files need to relate to what is includ

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

+1 (non-binding) - verified signature and checksum are OK - verified RAT license check is OK - ran install, test, and test-s3 in python 3.11 - ran some manual tests with GlueCatalog Looks good, thanks Honah!! - Drew

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

+1 (binding) - Checked the signature and the checksum - Ran the example notebooks against 0.6.1rc1 - Did some checks locally and looks all good! Thanks Honah for running the release! Kind regards, Fokko Op do 4 apr 2024 om 17:56 schr

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi Justin, Thanks for reviewing the release. There were some discussions about the NOTICE file in the 0.6.0 release: PR#410 and PR#413 . Here are the reasons why the following projects have not b

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi, I took a look at this, and the NOTICE file doesn't include the required information from the included Apache projects NOTICE files [1] Kind Regards, Justin 1. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

+1 (non binding) I checked: - Signatures and hashes are OK - ASF header is present (NB: I will create a PR to update to rat 0.16.1 which include some improvements/fixes on the check), PKG-INFO doesn't contain ASF header, but it's OK. - No binary found in the source distribution Thanks ! Regards J

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

+1 (non-binding) - Verified signatures and checksums - Verified license - Ran unit tests and integration tests Best regards, Honah On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:45 AM Honah J. wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I propose that we release the following RC as the official PyIceberg 0.6.1 > release. > > This is

[VOTE] Release Apache PyIceberg 0.6.1rc1

Hi Everyone, I propose that we release the following RC as the official PyIceberg 0.6.1 release. This is a patch release due to a serious bug that has been found . Smaller bugs also have been backported