From: Aljoscha Krettek
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 at 14:10
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Beam release 0.3.0-incubating
To:
The specified duration is over, I'm hereby closing the vote. Thanks a lot
for your participation!
I'll tally the results in a separate thread.
Cheers,
Aljoscha
On Sun, 30
The specified duration is over, I'm hereby closing the vote. Thanks a lot
for your participation!
I'll tally the results in a separate thread.
Cheers,
Aljoscha
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 at 21:26 John D. Ament wrote:
> I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release. Other issues are issues
> outs
I'm going to switch my vote to +1 for the release. Other issues are issues
outside of this podling's domain.
John
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 9:31 AM John D. Ament wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still g
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 8:04 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> Your definition matches my definition from 3 years ago, which I had used
> for a long while until someone told me I'm wrong. Are you on legal
> discuss? Let's move this over there.
Even better, there is already a JIRA for wha
Craig,
Your definition matches my definition from 3 years ago, which I had used
for a long while until someone told me I'm wrong. Are you on legal
discuss? Let's move this over there.
On Oct 30, 2016 10:50, "Craig Russell" wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> On Sa
> On Oct 30, 2016, at 6:03 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi,
> -1 due to the kinesis lib
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:53 PM Craig Russell
wrote:
>
> > On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
> >>
> >> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the o
Hi Aljoscha,
yes, please, create a Jira, I will take a look.
Thanks,
Regards
JB
On 10/29/2016 09:12 AM, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept
that a rat check won't work on the release? Should I create an issue for
updating to the l
> On Oct 29, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
>>
>> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
>> kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 4:51 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
>
> Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the
> kinesis library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought
> this would cover it? [1]
>
I obviously have a
Hi,
> -1 due to the kinesis library issue.
Can you provide a bit more detail on what the objection is with the kinesis
library? Given it's optional and not being distributed I thought this would
cover it? [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#optional
---
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:23 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and
> accept
> > that a rat check won't work on the release?
>
> IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few
> more hits, but none IMO a
Hi,
> So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept
> that a rat check won't work on the release?
IMO it’s fine. JFYI you you ran rat manually on the release it shows a few more
hits, but none IMO are cause for concern.
It it picked up any source files without head
So, with respect to the DEPENDENCIES file we're still good to go and accept
that a rat check won't work on the release? Should I create an issue for
updating to the lastest Apache maven-parent or do you want to do that, JB
or Dan?
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:54 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Agree.
Agree.
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:23, at 08:23, Dan Halperin
wrote:
>More on DEPENDENCIES:
>
>The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from
>the
>RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See
>also
>the linked issues from the Apache pom
Yes. Good idea. Anyway the dependency should be optional (build in a dedicated
profile or not).
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:22, at 08:22, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a
>profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to m
More on DEPENDENCIES:
The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from the
RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See also
the linked issues from the Apache pom [2].
I think that file's presence may be WAI?
[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/
For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a
profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to maven central, etc.
For a normal build.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:20 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Thanks Justin.
>
> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependenc
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Oct 28, 2016, 10:58, at 10:58, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
>version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
>[ ] +1, Approve the release
>[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide spec
Thanks Justin.
Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
Thanks again
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
>
>> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
>provided, I don'
Hi,
Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I
> don't think it's an issue.
In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing about
if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could find.
This
Ah yes that's it. So it's not a project specific thing IMHO.
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:15, at 08:15, Christopher wrote:
>I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's
>execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated
>when
>the 'apache-release
Hi Dan
Yeah good catch. Default configuration of the release plugin doesn't create
such file afair. So we probably have a configuration or other plugins defined
in the project.
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:07, at 08:07, Dan Halperin
wrote:
>Hi Justin,
>
>Thanks for excellent detailed a
I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's
execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated when
the 'apache-release' profile is active during a release.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM Dan Halperin
wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for excellent detai
Hi Justin,
Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual!
1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release [0],
but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn
release-plugin`, following our release process [2].
To clear up some possible confusion: We
Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I
don't think it's an issue.
If it's not the case (I gonna check) and the resulting jar embeds the
dependency it's an issue.
Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the ones who
needs pipelines co
Hi,
> We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main point. Yes
you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t have it as a
dependancy either unless it’s optional.
> The dependency is not embedded
Hi John
Rat is supposed to run with the release profile. We are going to check that and
why DEPENDENCIES file has not been checked.
Regarding Kinesis, the dependency should not be embedded in any Beam jar or
distribution. The user has to explicitly define the dependency to be able to
use the I
Hi Justin
We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file. The users
have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the Kinesis IO.
So I don't see any issue in that case. Agree ?
Regards
JB
On Oct 2
Hi,
-1 binding due to incompatible license dependancy. Happy to change my vote if
this is shown to not be the case.
Everything checks out expect the dependancy of Amazon licensed software which
is category X [1] this (closed) JIRA covers it [2]
Note that it not enough just to not included the
Hi,
mvn apache-rat:check fails on your release due to the DEPENDENCIES file not
having a header. If you don't need this file, please remove it. I would
also recommend leaving apache-rat running all the time to avoid newly
introduced issues.
In addition, I notice that your build output includes
+1 (binding), carrying over from dev vote
Sent from my iPhone,
Venkatesh
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:22 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>
> (repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs )
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> So far I've successfully checked:
> * signatures and digests
> * source releases
(repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs )
+1 (binding)
So far I've successfully checked:
* signatures and digests
* source releases file layouts
* matched git tags and commit ids
* incubator suffix and disclaimer
* NOTICE and LICENSE files
* license headers
* clean build (Java 1.
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIR
34 matches
Mail list logo
