First of all, one cannot "veto" a release, so a -1 vote on a release
is not, really, a blocker. One can still do the release; but it does
indicate a lack of consensus within the (P)PMC that the release
is in a "releasable" state.
> On Apr 1, 2018, at 7:19 PM, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
>
> Although
Hi,
> I reckon I'm a bit confused as well now as I'm not sure what is the correct
> fix to apply….
In your case it quite simple see [1] Nothing needs to be added to NOTICE for
MIT or BSD licensed software. You just need to remove the lines and copyright
notices that refer to any software licen
Hi,
In general just because a TLP does something doesn’t mean it’s in line with
policy or may have historic reasons for it being that way.
> Apache Hadoop: https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> Apache Spark: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
Have been discuss
I reckon I'm a bit confused as well now as I'm not sure what is the correct
fix to apply
Is there any of the folks who voted -1 to propose some fixes?
via pull request or a patch? the git repo is available here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-gobblin
This will definitely helps a lot as eve
Although the vote is over and successful, at this point I think I will just
update the NOTICE file and bring in another RC for vote.
However, I am puzzled that this improvement (not blocker) is attracting -1
votes. I would have expected +1 or 0 with improvement suggestion,
specifically because I s
Hi,
It's hard to come up with a single simple sentence that applies in all cases.
So when I said "if something is bundled then it's license and copyright needs
to be in LICENSE not NOTICE.” I’m wrong as it's not going to all cover all
cases.
For bundling Apache licensed (v2) bits of software t
> On Apr 1, 2018, at 10:48 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> I don't think that is true; I think bundled bits can affect the NOTICE
> file (albeit perhaps rarely).
That is my position as well, fwiw.
On 1 April 2018 at 15:29, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 1, 2018, at 9:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>
>> If bundled bits never affect the NOTICE file, why is there a concern
>> about minimising the NOTICE contents?
>>
>
> Let's consider the "touch points" between what we release and
> the downstrea
> On Apr 1, 2018, at 9:35 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> If bundled bits never affect the NOTICE file, why is there a concern
> about minimising the NOTICE contents?
>
Let's consider the "touch points" between what we release and
the downstream user and consumer eco-system. For these
entities, the 3
I am also going to vote -1 for the same reason. It seems to me that
simply fixing this issue is all that's required for a successful RC3 and GA.
> On Mar 31, 2018, at 7:08 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> -1 binding as NOTICE should not contain copyrights of bundled 3rd party
> software. T
On 1 April 2018 at 14:15, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I have not looked at the NOTICE file.
>
> Perhaps your should as my statements was in context to that.
>
>> "if something is bundled then it's license and copyright needs to be
>> in LICENSE not NOTICE."
>>
>> As noted above, I don't think
Hi,
> I have not looked at the NOTICE file.
Perhaps your should as my statements was in context to that.
> "if something is bundled then it's license and copyright needs to be
> in LICENSE not NOTICE."
>
> As noted above, I don't think that is true.
For what licenses do you think this is not t
On 1 April 2018 at 13:28, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> non-bundled Dependencies are irrelevant to the contents of NOTICE and
>> LICENSE.
>
> Yep 100% agree.
>
>> Though of course the license does affect whether it is allowed to be a
>> dependency.
>
> Also agree.
>
>> NOTICE and LICENSE are on
Hi,
> non-bundled Dependencies are irrelevant to the contents of NOTICE and LICENSE.
Yep 100% agree.
> Though of course the license does affect whether it is allowed to be a
> dependency.
Also agree.
> NOTICE and LICENSE are only for bits that are bundled in the release artifact.
Yep 100% in
On 1 April 2018 at 09:21, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Can you elaborate a bit ? I checked the NOTICE file and it looks good to me.
>> It mentions the included dependencies like bootstrap.
>
> Dependancies should not be mentioned in NOTICE. if something is bundled then
> it's license and copy
Hi all,
The vote for releasing Apache Gobblin 0.12.0 (incubating) is now closed.
With a total of 4 +1 binding votes and one -1 vote, the vote passes.
+1 votes:
* Olivier Lamy
* Matt Sicker
* Jean-Baptiste Onofré
* Romain Manni-Bucau
-1 vote:
* Justin Mclean
Thank you everyone for taking the ti
Thanks everyone for the feedback.
Summarizing the thread: proposed changes to the NOTICE file is an
improvement and thus we will consider it in the next release.
At the moment, I will close the vote since we have run out of time and have
the necessary votes.
Thanks again,
Abhishek
On Sun, Apr 1,
+1, not a blocker since it is more on nice to have helpers than needed
tools IMHO and legally it looks ok and it builds properly
Le 1 avr. 2018 10:42, "Olivier Lamy" a écrit :
> Well not a big drama, we can fix that with the next release.
> ATM 2 mentors have voted +1: Jean-Baptiste and myself.
Well not a big drama, we can fix that with the next release.
ATM 2 mentors have voted +1: Jean-Baptiste and myself.
1 * IPMC with Matt.
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 at 18:36, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> PS by my count you only need one more +1 vote and only one of your project
> mentors have voted.
>
Thanks for the update. It makes sense.
Let's see what the other IPMC will say. Definitely something to fix for next
release at least.
Regards
JB
Le 1 avr. 2018 à 10:25, à 10:25, Justin Mclean a
écrit:
>Hi,
>
>> Yes but as said we can fix in next release cycle. It's more an
>improvement than a
Hi,
PS by my count you only need one more +1 vote and only one of your project
mentors have voted.
Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@i
Hi,
> Yes but as said we can fix in next release cycle. It's more an improvement
> than a blocker IMHO.
IMO it still warrants a -1, but that is not a veto or a blocker. Other IPMC
members and the project mentors are free to vote however they want. If you get
3 +1 votes and more +1’s than -1’s
Hi,
> Can you elaborate a bit ? I checked the NOTICE file and it looks good to me.
> It mentions the included dependencies like bootstrap.
Dependancies should not be mentioned in NOTICE. if something is bundled then
it's license and copyright needs to be in LICENSE not NOTICE.
Thanks,
Justin
-
Hi,
> Can you please explain what is the legal problem with such content?
It’s not a legal probably as such but an ASF policy one. The NOTICE need to be
keep as small as possible as it has an affect on downstream projects.
> TBH I can see so many similar content in a lot of TLP projects.
You
Yes but as said we can fix in next release cycle. It's more an improvement than
a blocker IMHO.
Regards
JB
Le 1 avr. 2018 à 10:10, à 10:10, Willem Jiang a écrit:
>Hi Olivier
>
>NOTICE file is not supposed to include the copyright unless the License
>requires.
>As the MIT License already has the
Hi Olivier
NOTICE file is not supposed to include the copyright unless the License
requires.
As the MIT License already has the copyright statement, we don't need to
specify it in the NOTCE file.
I just copy the Justin's comments from the lega issue discussion[1] , it
can explain lots of thing.
Hi Justin
Can you elaborate a bit ? I checked the NOTICE file and it looks good to me. It
mentions the included dependencies like bootstrap.
Thanks
Regards
JB
Le 1 avr. 2018 à 01:08, à 01:08, Justin Mclean a écrit:
>Hi,
>
>-1 binding as NOTICE should not contain copyrights of bundled 3rd party
Hi
the content is simply.
"
Apache Gobblin
Copyright 2017-2018 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
This product includes Bootstrap
Copyright (c) 2011-2015 Twitter, Inc.
This product includes th
Hi,
-1 binding as NOTICE should not contain copyrights of bundled 3rd party
software. The NOTICE file needs to only contain what is required (and not
already in LICENSE) and needs to be as small as possible as it affects
downstream projects. [2]
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures an
+1 (binding)
Checked build, signatures & headers, DISCLAIMER, NOTICE and LICENSE.
Regards
JB
Le 27 mars 2018 à 02:01, à 02:01, Abhishek Tiwari a écrit:
>The Apache Gobblin community has voted on and approved the release of
>Apache Gobblin 0.12.0 (incubating):
>
>https://www.mail-archive.com/dev
+1 (binding)
* Signatures ok
* Rat check ok
* Build and tests ok
* Disclaimer, License, and Notice ok
On 30 March 2018 at 05:57, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi,
> I wonder if we could get some review/votes from other IPMCs?
> We still need 2 more votes.
> Thanks
> Olivier
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at
Hi,
I wonder if we could get some review/votes from other IPMCs?
We still need 2 more votes.
Thanks
Olivier
On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 at 09:10, Matt Sicker wrote:
> It's not a deal breaker IMO, just a difficulty in getting set up.
>
> On 27 March 2018 at 16:32, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
>
> > Thanks Ma
It's not a deal breaker IMO, just a difficulty in getting set up.
On 27 March 2018 at 16:32, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
> Thanks Matt for pointing that out, good to know. I have created a Jira to
> consider that option: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOBBLIN-449
> However, I am wondering if t
Thanks Matt for pointing that out, good to know. I have created a Jira to
consider that option: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GOBBLIN-449
However, I am wondering if this is a deal breaker for the release? Or, can
we use the current process that we have adopted since it works well for our
us
Abhishek, what about using a bootstrap gradle task to download the jar and
gradlew? DataFu does this [1], which was based on Samza's solution. You
just need to have some version of gradle installed and can run `gradle -b
bootstrap.gradle`. Then you don't need the jar or gradlew checked in.
-Mat
Yes, I understand that gradle-wrapper.jar is a convenience jar that helps
get the gradle.
However, we could not include it in the distribution because it is not
acceptable to include binaries and instead we went with the proposed
resolution in this thread:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGA
I'd suggest not including gradlew and gradlew.bat in your source
distribution then. You are aware that gradle-wrapper.jar is itself a
bootstrap jar to get gradle itself, right? It's tiny and generally bundled
with source code for convenience. As an aside, in order to regenerate the
gradle wrapper t
Hi Matt,
Thanks for checking. We intentionally do not bundle gradle-wrapper.jar, and
instead document the steps to obtain it and build.
Please check the included README.md file.
Regards,
Abhishek
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> The bundled gradle wrapper in the source tgz
The bundled gradle wrapper in the source tgz doesn't work. It appears to be
missing gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
On 26 March 2018 at 19:01, Abhishek Tiwari wrote:
> The Apache Gobblin community has voted on and approved the release of
> Apache Gobblin 0.12.0 (incubating):
>
> https://www.ma
The Apache Gobblin community has voted on and approved the release of
Apache Gobblin 0.12.0 (incubating):
https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@gobblin.incubator.apache.org/msg01772.html
Results:
5 binding +1 votes
No 0 votes
No -1 votes
The feedback from previous release candidates has been addresse
40 matches
Mail list logo
