[RESULT][VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

(re-sending with corrected subject line) The vote has PASSED with 3 +1 binding votes from the Incubator PMC members, and no 0 or -1 votes: +1 Justin Mclean +1 Roman Shaposhnik +1 John Ament On behalf of the MADlib community, thank you very much to the reviewers above and others who commented on

[RESULT][VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

The vote has PASSED with 3 +1 binding votes from the Incubator PMC members, and no 0 or -1 votes: +1 Justin Mclean +1 Roman Shaposhnik +1 John Ament On behalf of the MADlib community, thank you very much to the reviewers above and others who commented on the associated legal-discuss thread. We w

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

On behalf of the MADlib community, thank you very much to the reviewers and others who commented on the associated legal-discuss thread. On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:17 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > +1 binding > > While the release contents look odd, they're not wrong. We'll need to sort > out the r

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

+1 binding While the release contents look odd, they're not wrong. We'll need to sort out the rest via legal prior to graduation. I would appreciate if the podling did start tracking a project specific goal of resolving the BSD licensing switch over to Apache License. John On Wed, Sep 7, 2016

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, +1 binding I assume the header/licensing situation will be sorted out before graduation. I checked: - artefact contains incubating - signatures and hashes correct - LICENSE good - although short form (pointer to license text is preferred). - NOTICE ok - Not sure if all files have correct hea

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Frank McQuillan wrote: > > Hello Incubator PMC, > > The Apache MADlib (incubating) community has voted on and approved the > proposal to release MADlib v1.9.1-rc2. > > The voting result is available at: > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-de

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

John/Justin, Have the questions you asked been answered to your satisfaction? Is there any additional information we can provide for your review? Frank On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Orhan Kislal wrote: > Hi, > > The changelist files take new names with every version and then get > updated.

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, The changelist files take new names with every version and then get updated. These files do not have license headers (like the other old files) but they were part of the pre-Apache life of MADlib. I believe the confusion originates from using the regular "mv" command instead of "git mv". Than

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, > The MADlib community is unclear on how to deal with the dual license. Well that makes two off us. :-) > Till now we've treated all *new* files (i.e. files that were created > after joining Apache) as Apache license with required headers and all > old files under the BSD. I can see several

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi Justin, Thanks for your review. Please find responses inline. - Rahul On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: > > Hi, > > I’m also having trouble reviewing this release. > > For instance these files have changed since the 1.9 release but don’t have > headers. Are they BSD or Ap

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi, I’m also having trouble reviewing this release. For instance these files have changed since the 1.9 release but don’t have headers. Are they BSD or Apache licensed? incubator-madlib-1.9.1/deploy/postflight.sh incubator-madlib-1.9.1/doc/etc/madlib_extra.css incubator-madlib-1.9.1/methods/arra

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

John, is there any additional information we can provide for your review? Frank On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Orhan Kislal wrote: > John, > > I know of this commit and I cannot see any distinction between the > src/utils folder and many other excluded folders. Here is the phrase from > the LI

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

John, I know of this commit and I cannot see any distinction between the src/utils folder and many other excluded folders. Here is the phrase from the LICENSE file: The rest of the source code, unless explicitly marked with an Apache License header, should be assumed to be coming from previous li

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Frank pointed me to this commit - which changes a bunch of things to Apache License: https://github.com/apache/incubator-madlib/commit/a6acafdd54bd5e5d53ac3b7fb4b6621c042af460#diff-600376dffeb79835ede4a0b285078036 John On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:58 PM Orhan Kislal wrote: > John, > > I am checking

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

John, I am checking MADlib github page for the src/utils folder and it indicates that the latest commits are from 4-5 years ago. Could you point us to the commit tag that you mentioned? Thanks, Orhan On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 5:47 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Frank, > > Then those files should hav

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Frank, Then those files should have Apache headers (they're not listed in the explicitly licensed area & are part of a commit that added apache headers). Can you explain why you think they're not subject, or what license they're falling under? John On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:41 PM Frank McQuillan

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

John, src/utils files were in the original commit by Roman when we brought the files into ASF: https://github.com/apache/incubator-madlib/commit/a6acafdd54bd5e5d53ac3b7fb4b6621c042af460#diff-600376dffeb79835ede4a0b285078036 and they have not been changed since that time. tag: a6acafdd54bd5e5d53ac

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:01 PM Frank McQuillan wrote: > Hi John, > > Thanks for reviewing the release. > > Regarding the exclusion list, during the first Apache incubator release for > MADlib 1.9 alpha, there was a legal-discuss thread on how to proceed with > headers that came from pre-Apache da

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi John, Thanks for reviewing the release. Regarding the exclusion list, during the first Apache incubator release for MADlib 1.9 alpha, there was a legal-discuss thread on how to proceed with headers that came from pre-Apache days when MADlib was under a 2-clause BSD license. The agreement was

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hi John, We've uploaded the KEYS file to apache dist and didn't use any public server for the previous 2 releases. I've uploaded my key (which was used for the signature) to keyservers.net and should be available now after you update

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

In addition, your exclusion list is not valid for RAT (or maybe there was a discussion that MADlib can exclude extra files?). I don't see a reason that src/utils is excluded, for instance. There are files (src/utils/Math.hpp for instance, but probably most of the files) that seem to be madlib spe

Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

I'm getting a problem with your key. Can you look at it and tell me if you think the issue's on my end? Johns-MBP-2:Downloads johnament$ gpg --verify apache-madlib-1.9.1-incubating-source.tar.gz.asc gpg: assuming signed data in 'apache-madlib-1.9.1-incubating-source.tar.gz' gpg: Signature made Fr

[VOTE] MADlib v1.9.1-rc2

Hello Incubator PMC, The Apache MADlib (incubating) community has voted on and approved the proposal to release MADlib v1.9.1-rc2. The voting result is available at: https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-madlib-dev/201609.mbox/%3CCAKBQfzT0pw1%3DP-KWuZVsAwORdHdz792WvUtR-DbM%2BH8EkiZd