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

> On Aug 9, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > > Personally, I feel like those types of files definitely need to be > included in the SGA. > After all, Pivotal did own the modifications on top of the pristine PG > source and it is > important for the company to explicitly signal dona

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

Hi, One of my concerns was that the code may be a port of something under a different license (given the directory naming). For example there’s QNX FS code in Linux which is GPL licensed. [3] (date seem to be about 2.2) However I think it may be a port to get the software to run on QNX4 and wri

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Mike Jumper wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean > wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT >>> source code. >> >> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c > > I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of > the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same > paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come fro

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT >> source code. > > That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or > CDDL licensed software? There's NO WAY that could be the ca

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT >> source code. > > That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or > CDDL licensed software? > >> That's why I don't feel comfort

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

To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come from? I think that's what Justin is asking. On 8/9/16, 4:32 P

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

Hi, > Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT > source code. That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software? > That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header > there on my own.

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

On 8/9/16, 3:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote: >Hi, > >> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the >> headers is not an option. > >Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they >were originally under? IANAL, but in my mind, yes. The header is

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the >> policy, the answer is simple. >> Quote: >>"3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of >> third-party source files.” > > In the case when

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

Hi, > If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the > policy, the answer is simple. > Quote: >"3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of > third-party source files.” In the case when they are not actually ALv2 licensed. It assumed that any files t

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the >> current stated policy >> on unmodified 3d party: >>http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party > > Why exactly is that against policy? If you're asking

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

Hi, > Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the > current stated policy > on unmodified 3d party: >http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party Why exactly is that against policy? You are adding a header to make clear what the license of that file is. That not

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of >> Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified >> upstream code that Kudu >> settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z > >

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

Hi, > AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the > headers is not an option. Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they were originally under? Thanks, Justin - To unsubsc

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

Hi, > Well, I don't think there's ever a 100% assurance in IP matters, > but... here's what > we know AND here's what we would like to advertise to the consumers of HAWQ: > A certain set of file (how we advertise the filenames is TBD, but > likely in LICENSE)... > 1. ...came from PostgreSQL proj

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

Hi, > If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of > Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified > upstream code that Kudu > settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z And the result of that is that it almost impossible to review an

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

On 8/9/16, 1:46 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote: >> >> >> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" >> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean >>>wrote: Hi

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

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" > wrote: > >>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean >>wrote: >>> Hi, >>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark the fi

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

On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposh...@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: >On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean >wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark >>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could >>

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

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >>> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something >>> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that > > Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the > licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear? No

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

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > >> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark >> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look >> weir enough. > > Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? For things where we div

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

Hi, >> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something >> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear? Does the files version control history tell you anything? I know i

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

Hi, > This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark > the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir > enough. Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? That way the licensing of any file would be clear and anyone editing those feel in the

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

Hi Justin! sorry for a belated reply -- I was on a glorious 2.5 vacation with a total disconnect from my email/etc (I have to admit I did Tweet a bit, but only when it came to non-software related things like politics or beer). And speaking of beer -- we really owe you a big one. I hope you're com

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

Hi, > However, do you think that'd be a release blocker if we just have a link > not full content in the source tarsal? No it’s a very minor issue. I listed what I considered release blockers in my vote email next to the -1 vote. Thanks, Justin --

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

the JIRA was drafted in such a way according to original feedback. I don't know what's the best way , will check with our project mentors for that. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c > > < >

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

the JIRA was drafted in such a way according to original feedback. I don't know what's the best way , will check with our project mentors for that. On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c > > < >

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

Hi, > @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c > > >was not referred in your previous email anywhere. But given the > context, I think it fits in your comments about [28]-[33

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

Thanks for the clarification. I've filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-960 to track this. However, do you think that'd be a release blocker if we just have a link not full content in the source tarball? On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:19 PM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > > Do you mean t

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

Hi, > Do you mean this should be put in VOTE email? I expected it in BUILD_INSTRUCTIONS.md but it just contains a link to the wiki page, but anywhere in the release is fine. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsu

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

A quick update: I've filed - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958 (for all license issues in Justin's email) @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c was not

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

Hi Justin - for this comment: I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future how do I know how to build this release? We have a wikipage: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Build+and+Ins

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

Thanks Justin for your detailed and thorough analysis - I'll bring this back to the community and address the items listed one by one. Meanwhile, please let us know if you see any other issues so we can solve them together in the next Release Candidate. Appreciate your effort. -Goden On Tue, Jul

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 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

[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