Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi, -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release (BSD with ad clause). This is not a simple release to check and I may

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

My mistake on the binaries. I did a ‘find . -type f -exec file {} \;’ and it turned up a bunch of files that it said were unstripped executables, but I didn’t notice that they were in a directory called ‘hawq-data’, so I assume these are test data files, not actual executables. Sorry about tha

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC4 as 0.8.1

Hi, > [Kam] This analyzes jars required to build the binary artifacts - so my > assumption is that it is not relevant to release just the source? Apache project cannot have GPL dependancies [1][5][6] (there are however a few exceptions for optional parts[2] and some build tools [3]). I’d first

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Thanks John. depends / libhdfs3 /test /data/, depen

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

I can't find any binaries. However, I have many questions about your license file. According to the license, the files under depends/*/test/data (and similar directories) fall under a Postgres license. Considering what these files are named, that doesn't sound right. Personally, there are way t

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Thanks Alan for the prompt feedback. I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 for the COPYRIGHT file issue. For executable binary files in , can you be more specific? I couldn't locate them in source tree and hopefully I didn't pack them by mistake. On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM

Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

-1. There are a number of binary executables in the contrib directory. Binary executables can’t be in a source release. Also, the contents of the COPYRIGHT file should be in NOTICE rather than in a separate file. Alan. > On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:31, Goden Yao wrote: > > Hi IPMC, > > The PP

RE: Code signing and WOT for releases

> -Original Message- > From: Nick Kew [mailto:n...@apache.org] > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 02:25 > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Code signing and WOT for releases > > On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 09:19 +0200, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > the docs about relea

[VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release

Hi IPMC, The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed. We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community. The PPMC vote thread is here: https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E *Th

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC4 as 0.8.1

Hi Justin Again - thanks for your vigilance and time to review RC4. >All like like there may be license dependancy issues, but I’m not familiar >enough with sbt and the project to comment. This "sbt dependencyLicenseInfo | >grep GNU” shows several GPL dependancies (may be duplicated?). It may be

Re: [VOTE] Apache Gearpump (incubating) 0.8.1-RC4 as 0.8.1

Hi John Thanks for the review.  >- I ran license dump on the release.  Checked the output from >output/target/license-reports and it reported several GPL dependencies. >Can you take a look and perhaps put in overrides for the correct licenses? For this report it is examining artifacts required to b

Re: Code signing and WOT for releases

On Tue, 2016-07-26 at 09:19 +0200, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Hi all, > > the docs about release management for incubating projects make clear > that the release needs to be signed[1] and in the end associated with > the project AND the WOT of Apache in general[2]. I don't like that term "the WOT

Re: Code signing and WOT for releases

On 26/07/2016 08:19, Thorsten Schöning wrote: > Hi all, > > the docs about release management for incubating projects make clear > that the release needs to be signed[1] and in the end associated with > the project AND the WOT of Apache in general[2]. > > Is there some way to check what the owner

Code signing and WOT for releases

Hi all, the docs about release management for incubating projects make clear that the release needs to be signed[1] and in the end associated with the project AND the WOT of Apache in general[2]. Is there some way to check what the owner of a PGP key for former releases has done to get his associ