Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

This sounds good to me. On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote: > This vote thread looks like a hanging chad. The current vote count is: > > +1 Ted > +1 Lars > +1 Justin > +1 or -1: Grant > -0 Jan > > I would love to have a clarification vote from Grant. I read his concern > and

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

This vote thread looks like a hanging chad. The current vote count is: +1 Ted +1 Lars +1 Justin +1 or -1: Grant -0 Jan I would love to have a clarification vote from Grant. I read his concern and the subsequent messages to mean +1 but I'm a bit biased as I'd like to see this release go out. Wh

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:24 AM, sebb wrote: > > If it contains sources, it's not a binary release. > > Not strictly true. Binary artifacts often contain source code examples. Also, for Drill specifically, the code generation strategy that Drill uses requires that snippets of source for differe

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On 13 October 2014 15:30, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: >> >> For many projects, especially "library" projects, the "convenient binaries" >> that matter most these >> days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that are deployed to the >> m

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On 13 October 2014 17:15, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 13.10.2014 16:14, Julian Hyde wrote: >> For many projects, especially "library" projects, the "convenient binaries" >> that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that >> are deployed to the maven repo. Calcite release

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On 13.10.2014 16:14, Julian Hyde wrote: > For many projects, especially "library" projects, the "convenient binaries" > that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that > are deployed to the maven repo. Calcite releases in fact do not currently > include a binary tar b

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > The Foundation was not set up to take on the liabilitiy associated with > binary > releases: > > http://s.apache.org/roy-binary-deps-3 > > How is that different from any of our other projects? End users > don't compile Java.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:14 AM, Julian Hyde wrote: > It seems to me that each of those jars is a de facto binary release. Definitely not. An official release by the Apache Software Foundation consists of source code which has been audited by a PMC. Of course it is not possible to audit an enti

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > Based on recent discussion, a review of this distinction would be > valuable > > for many at Apache. > > I very much second this. I think bringing some clarity at least into the > areas of: >#1 rules for complete source release tar

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: > >> >> Any redistribution must obey the licensing requirements of the contents >> >> so you are right that our binary redistributions need to be checked as >> well, but as far as in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

r 12, 2014 at 10:23 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release >Hi, > >> I can¹t seem to find the KEYS to verify the release. > >The KEYS file is inside the release (probably not the best place for it). > >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > For many projects, especially "library" projects, the "convenient binaries" > that matter most these > days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that are deployed to the > maven repo... > ...Are these jars subjected to due diligence

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

For many projects, especially "library" projects, the "convenient binaries" that matter most these days are the jars (source, binary, and javadoc) that are deployed to the maven repo. Calcite releases in fact do not currently include a binary tar ball, only a source tar ball and maven jars. Ar

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> make sure >> podlings understand the difference between source code releases and >> convenience binaries. >> > Based on recent discussion, a review of this distinction would b

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > >> Any redistribution must obey the licensing requirements of the contents > > so you are right that our binary redistributions need to be checked as > well, but as far as incubating projects are concerned it is IMO vital > to get thin

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:18 PM, sebb wrote: >... If the ASF mirrors are used to distribute convenience binaries, AIUI > these must still meet the following basic criteria... I tend to agree and wanted to make sure this is clearly documented, so I reread the following: https://issues.apac

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On 13 October 2014 10:06, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Justin Mclean > wrote: >> ...However votes on releases are more about the source release and >> binaries releases are just a convenience so I don't see that as a blocker... > > To clarify, the ASF only releas

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > ...However votes on releases are more about the source release and > binaries releases are just a convenience so I don't see that as a blocker... To clarify, the ASF only releases source code - votes on releases are not "more" about source,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Hi, > I can¹t seem to find the KEYS to verify the release. The KEYS file is inside the release (probably not the best place for it). Also: https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=Steven+Phillips&op=index Justin - To unsubscribe,

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

++ -Original Message- From: lars hofhansl Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org" , lars hofhansl Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 at 9:45 PM To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release >+1 (binding

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Hi, +1 binding. I checked: - vote assumed OK (see below) - artefact name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exits - LICENSE and NOTICE are correct for source package - signatures and hash good - All source files have apache headers - No unexpected binary files in artefact While Drill may depend on

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

That may be so, and I find this issue irritating to deal with, but I don't see that it has bearing on what is ultimately correct. I think that the guidance you refer to was wrong, according to the text of the licenses, and the link I pointed to. But even those are a bit ambiguous, so I raise the q

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Drill has had previous releases stopped *precisely* because NOTICE had too much stuff in it. The items you mention are among these items. I think the release is satisfactory as is. On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Sean Owen wrote: > I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

I am reading http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html . Yes LICENSE also needs to contain more things as well. Yes, there are several situations where NOTICE does not need to change, but this is the key sentence: "Aside from Apache-licensed dependencies which supply NOTICE files of their own

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Actually, the licensing howto says things like this: In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the source tree and a short note summarizing its licensing: This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a "3-clause BSD" license. For

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Ted Dunning wrote: > The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land. There's hardly any daylight between what Roy was recommending 8 years ago and what we recommend today. (NOTICE should be minimal, only bundled bits get documented in LICENSE and NOTIC

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

No I just went straight for the binary distribution: http://people.apache.org/~smp/apache-drill-0.6.0.rc0/apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating.tar.gz This contains the third-party jar files in jars/. I assume http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html is still the law of the land so to speak and in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Sean, Are you talking about the src distribution after doing the build? Before doing the build or after [mvn clean], there are no jars in the distribution. Videlicet: *ted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ mvn -q cleanted:apache-drill-0.6.0-incubating-src$ find . -name '*.jar'ted:apache-d

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

The standard practice has been drifting in incubator-land. When I brought this up previously, I was told a few things, 1) the notices required by BSD like licenses apparently should appear in the LICENSE file. 2) notices in the source distribution only need to include things that are included in

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Is it correct, then, to say that if Drill does not bundle any GPL licensed libraries, we do not need any additional info in the NOTICE? On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll > wrote: > > Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, bu

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin > (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm > not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects > I'm famili

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

I had a look, since I was just dealing with NOTICE for another project. The key is whether copies of the third-party libraries are distributed. In the case of Drill, yes there are loads of 3rd party jars distributed in jars/; they are not just Maven deps referenced in pom.xml. I am sure this will

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Not sure, and maybe a bit pedantic, but is the NOTICE file a little thin (practically non-existent) given the number of 3rd party libs present? I'm not an expert on what is required there, but when I compare it to projects I'm familiar with like Solr and Mahout, they are vastly different. I

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

in - those just have to wait a month. Only for critical > correctness issues did I delay a release for a few days. > > Obviously that is just my opinion.) > > Thanks. > > -- Lars > > > > > ____ > From: Ted Dunning >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

g To: "general@incubator.apache.org" Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2014 12:52 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release +1 (binding) I have downloaded the code, compiled and run the tests. I also checked all checksums, and verified the signatures. I also verified that t

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

+1 (binding) I have downloaded the code, compiled and run the tests. I also checked all checksums, and verified the signatures. I also verified that the signing key was signed by people I trust (and indeed, by me as well) and correctly propagated to the gpg key servers. I also reviewed in both

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM, jan i wrote: > My intentation was to raise a concern, NOT to block the release (I did on > purpose give a 0 and not -1). I am sorry if you feel its an over-statement, > but honestly for me failing unit tests and not checking a version > dependency (in case of older

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 2:46 PM, jan i wrote: > > 4.) And lastly, as Julian mentioned on the thread that the set of fixes > > might not be complete yet, > > I think we need more time before we can merge these changes in to a > release > > with confidence to > > support a new platform. > > > > I ag

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Jan, Your concern was a valid one and definitely one worth explanation. Please do not take my response as a rant from an upset soul :), rather an explanation towards why we chose to do what we did. I apologize if I sounded like one. We are, sometime, limited by the tools that we use and one such

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Hi First let me make it clear I am not a java specialist, and secondly big thanks to both of you for explaining more in detail what the problem is. On 7 October 2014 21:24, Aditya wrote: > Hi Jan, > > The issue was discussed on the release voting thread and there seems to be > an agreement >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Hi Jan, The issue was discussed on the release voting thread and there seems to be an agreement in the community that it may not be worth holding the release to include Java 8 support since 1.) Among most of the users, as evident on the vote thread, very few are running Java 8 in dev and test env

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:41 AM, jan i wrote: > It seems (from the vote thread) you already have solved the problem, but > dont want to wait for a respin, can you please at least explain why the > project is under such a time constraint, that 72 hours is too long to wait > to make good quality. >

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

The unit test was only on Java 1.8. That problem will be resolved in the next release which will be in roughly a month from now. The current primary target of Drill is 1.7. The number of reviewers for the release is an indication of how the community doesn't view Java 1.8 as a critical platform

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

Hi. I have had a look at your release and it looks good, I could not find any formal errors. But I took a closer look at the release vote thread, because a failing unit test is a serious bad quality signal for me. Whenever I test new software, I download it, build it, then run all test cases to

Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

In case there is any confusion, the first email sent out in this thread had the wrong vote count. The second one has the correct count: +9 binding +3 non-binding I should also mention there was one -0 (binding). This was due to unit test failures when using java 1.8. Jiras were filed, and the fix

[VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30 JIRAs closed in the last month. The vote thread can be found here:http://mail-arch

[VOTE] Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release

I would like to present the Apache Drill 0.6.0-incubating release to the general incubator list for a vote. This set of artifacts have passed our drill-dev vote and incorporate a number of improvements with over 30 JIRAs closed in the last month. The vote thread can be found here:http://mail-arch