On 9 February 2015 at 16:58:44, Marvin Humphrey
(mar...@rectangular.com<mailto:mar...@rectangular.com>) wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> On 8 February 2015 at 22:57:05, Justin Mclean
> (justinmcl...@me.com<mailto:justinmcl...@me.com>) wrote:
> Would it be OK if we addressed all of the issues in that release? You've
> identified them, which will make checking them easy. And as we plan to get
> that out by the end of the month, it won't be long before the "latest"
> release is considered all lined up.
Steve, I think the test should be whether the IPMC feels comfortable
explaining in a Board report why this release was approved despite its flaws.
OK
For the record, I'm a little confused about this, from the initial VOTE email:
This is a source+binary release, with the same actual source as the
previous slider-0.60.0-incubating release.
The ASF does not release binaries. I didn't really want to raise this issue
now and I don't mean to block Slider's forward progress, but I can't comment
without mentioning it. My interpretation is that this is a VOTE on the source
release of 0.61.0, which happens to have identical sources to 0.60.0 -- no
reason why a release with only a version bump wouldn't be legit.
the main difference is that the 0.60 release was source only: no prebuilt
binaries or artifacts in the maven repository. This release is intended to get
the "convenience" binaries into the maven repository for downstream
applications. In the process of doing this we've had to rework bits of the
build and release process.
To summarise, it's a "Weakly automated source-re-release accompanied by
convenience artifacts that will be pushed to maven central & some changes to
the POM XML files to aid this"
With that out of the way, let me comment on the specific issues
already raised...
>> All source files have headers and there no unexpected binaries but looks to
>> be be a few license and notice issues:
>>
>> First off I think this needs to be double checked:
>> ./slider-agent/src/main/python/kazoo/tests/util.py
>>
>> The first line says it's Apache licensed, but the header says it ZPL
>> licensed, which looks like BSD so should be included in LICENSE.
>
> This looks like the key thing we have to resolve other than just by cutting
> the files. We can see what others have done with this bit of source and
> update the LICENSE file as appropriate.
I'm somewhat relieved when I look at the file. In my opinion, the first line
is obviously a mistake, because it is followed immediately by a prominent
conflicting license header.
This makes it distinct from the very similar case of Falcon's 0.5 RC5 from
last September, which the IPMC decided required a respin because it appeared
that jquery had been licensed under ALv2.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201409.mbox/%3C19512409-1631-41B4-89F7-85C2EB15880D%40classsoftware.com%3E
I would argue that both the bogus line and the omission from LICENSE are
licensing documentation bugs rather than licensing violations and should not
block.
thanks
>> The product looks to be bundling Apache Accumulo but is missing information
>> from it's NOTICE file:
>> See /app-packages/accumulo/NOTICE.txt (or perhaps
>> https://github.com/apache/accumulo/blob/master/NOTICE ?)
>
> We're not actually bundling accumulo, it's just in the source for anyone to
> build a deployable package of that or HBase. Accordingly, I don't think this
> is an issue.
The question is whether any Accumulo sources which read on Accumulo's LICENSE
and NOTICE files are included in the Slider source release. I see from
another email that the Slider community has been careful to exclude portions
which are not relevant rather than bloat the licensing documentation of the
source release. If that's in fact what Slider's doing, it's best practice --
kudos and thank you!
>> LICENSE also missing BSD licence for RealWorldish Benchmark
>> vi ./slider-agent/src/main/python/jinja2/examples/rwbench/rwbench.py
>
> we can rm -rf the examples
Either mentioning in LICENSE or removing would address the licensing
documentation bug. But the inclusion of those files does not block, in my
opinion.
I've already cut test/ package from the development branch
>> The year in NOTICE is also incorrect.
>
> Yeah —saw that crop up with the Twill release, which was allowed through.
> Already fixed in our develop branch.
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-slider/blob/develop/NOTICE
I'll add a blurb to this month's report informing the Board that the Incubator
has been approving releases with this issue.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
