Hi,
> It a bit hidden but documented here [1] it more one of those assumed
> knowledge things. It certainly help people to know how those jars are
> licensed. The review of your binary release would of taken 1/2 the amount
> time if all of the jar contained their license (and notice) files.
Th
Hi,
> I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
> these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
> the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
> NetBeans build system produces.
It a bit hidden but documented here
Thanks a lot for a thorough review! Will take some time to go through that
and fix, but a few questions:
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of
> missed something. A number of issues here are due to ups
Hi,
I did this fairly quickly so may of made a mistake or two and may of missed
something. A number of issues here are due to upstream projects putting too
much in NOTICE or not including a NOTICE file in the jar :-( But it also looked
like you missing a couple of things from LICENSE as well an
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
> > far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
> > (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is
> mostl
Hi,
> One of the issue raised as the NOTICE file in the binary distribution. As
> far as I can tell, it is unclear what specifically we should do about it.
> (Yes, it contains a lot of text, but my understanding is that it is mostly
> based on NOTICE files from other Apache projects we use/bundle,
Please consider this VOTE canceled while we work on the issues raised on
this vote thread.
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Luciano Resende
wrote:
> Please vote to approve the release of Apache Toree 0.2.0-incubating
> (RC3).
>
> The podling dev vote thread:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@t
Hi,
> Thanks for checking Justin, Toree internally needs to interpret Scala code
> and be able to add external jars as dependencies and these three jars are
> mainly used for testing purposes and they are also cleared labeled as a
> test and placed as test resources. Having said that, this seems t
Hi,
> I'm not sure there's a strong case to build these Jars just before using
> them in tests. That would require much more time and maintenance than just
> including the binaries. There's nothing special about them besides that
> they have classes that can be loaded to verify the classpath addit
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) as there is compiled source in the release
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes correct
> - disclaimer exists
> - LICENSE is good
> - NOTICE needs year updating
> - Unexpected jars in source re
Justin,
A bit more context on those Jars: these were created to test the ability to
add jars at runtime to the Scala interpreter, and they were contributed to
the project as tests.
I'm not sure there's a strong case to build these Jars just before using
them in tests. That would require much more
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
>> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very s
On 01/22/2018 10:01 AM, sebb wrote:
On 22 January 2018 at 14:48, Hank Beatty wrote:
The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache
Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating).
More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:
http://trafficcontrol.incubator.a
On 22 January 2018 at 14:48, Hank Beatty wrote:
> The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache
> Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating).
>
> More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:
>
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/
>
> The release arti
The Apache Traffic Control team is proud to announce the release of Apache
Traffic Control 2.1.0 (incubating).
More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at:
http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/
The release artifacts can be downloaded here:
https://www.apache.org/dyn/cl
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:41 AM Jaroslav Tulach
wrote:
> I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
> aside...
>
> > ...
> > I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
> for
>
> > which the addition of a source header would cause the t
I'd like to focus on the actual issue found, leaving the overall discussion
aside...
> ...
> I'm assuming that some of your concerns are around bullet #2 "Test data
for
> which the addition of a source header would cause the tests to fail." The
> problem looking at this statement vs the file act
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:03 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > > Apache
> > > > license
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is one o
Thanks to all who voted!
The release has PASSED with the following IPMC votes:
+1 Phil Sorber (binding)
+1 Justin Mclean (binding)
+1 Leif Hedstrom (binding)
I will proceed to publish the release and send ANNOUNCE.
On behalf of the Apache Traffic Control podling, thank you!
Regards,
Hank Beat
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 1:56 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (th
On Monday, January 22, 2018, John D. Ament wrote:
> >
> >
> > > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> > Apache
> > > license
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> > about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they m
On 2018-01-22 12:36, John D. Ament wrote:
I'm inclined to vote -1 at this point as well.. I want confirm that the
list of issues Justin raised have been entered in your backlog. To me, the
minimum amount of work that has to be done to convert to a +1 is:
- Remove the binary zip files from t
>
>
> > - Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> Apache
> > license
> >
>
> This is one of the things that are very unclear to me. If we are talking
> about files like these [1][2][3][4][5][6] (they may appear to differ, but
> they actually are all the same: test data),
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Jochen Theodorou
wrote:
>
>
> Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
>
>> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
>> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
>> members evaluating a release
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
> > taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the ver
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 6:51 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <
bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > ...Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be
> Apache
> > license
> > - Specific call outs somewhere that th
Hi John,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 12:36 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> ...Specific call outs in the README about test data licensing not be Apache
> license
> - Specific call outs somewhere that the XSDs, ENTs, etc are derived from
> other locations...
If NetBeans moves their RAT exclusions to a sing
Am 22.01.2018 um 11:01 schrieb Geertjan Wielenga:
I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
exclusions. No, they cannot sim
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:33 AM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
> taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
> seriously.
>
> It is for that very reason that, for
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of
> whether
> > RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
> > can't release even.
>
> There is some cases where this is allowed. I know of
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> ...Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in
> their take on your review too
My take is, as you suggest, that people from NetBeans convert Justin's
concerns into jira tickets so that things can be specif
The very last thing you’ll find us doing is ignoring your advice. We have
taken everything everyone has said and suggested from the very start very
seriously.
It is for that very reason that, for example, we’d like rat exclusions to
be discussed and not ignored and for it also to be affirmed that
Hi,
> No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether
> RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you
> can't release even.
There is some cases where this is allowed. I know of at least one project who
got approval from VP legal to make a relea
Hi,
> I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
> together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
> members evaluating a release.
Rat exclusions are fine if they comply with policy and don’t hide things. I’ve
reviewed and voted on 300+ releas
I appreciate your response and it is very clear that I am not making that
argument at all. And no it does not suck at all to do due diligence — that
is whh we are here: we want a product with healthy IP. And we appreciate
Justin’s thorough IP review, a lot. However, I would like it to be affirmed
t
Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the
past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early
releases from a new podling.
The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have
to wade through a bunch of warnings that you h
I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions
together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC
members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat
exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted
with a very
37 matches
Mail list logo
