Hello,
The IPMC vote passes.
The IPMC vote thread is here:
http://s.apache.org/nifi-0.0.1-ipmc-voteresult
Summary:
6 (binding) [+1]
0 [<= 0]
The following binding +1 votes were received:
- Sergio Fernandez
- Drew Farris
- Andrew Purtell
- Justin Mclean
- Benson Margulies
- Jan Iversen
All
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Can you tell me specifically what you noticed in the Kafka bundle. It
> seems like we should be totally safe when depending on another Apache
> Software Foundation project. However, perhaps that is a dangerous
> assumption.
>
> I looked up Kafk
Billie,
Can you tell me specifically what you noticed in the Kafka bundle. It
seems like we should be totally safe when depending on another Apache
Software Foundation project. However, perhaps that is a dangerous
assumption.
I looked up Kafka's NOTICE and LICENSE file and appears to be the sto
Billie
My concern with the dependencies file is the false sense of security it can
sometimes give. These are dependencies for which Maven can find the
license information. If it can't it isn't something that could be clearly
called out/articulated. This is particularly true with a case like bun
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Will investigate how to have the build process for the convenience
binaries
> not add the auto-generated dependencies file and for it to use our license
> rather than the stock one.
I actually like the dependencies file. It makes it easier to ch
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> ...We run the release plugin, it
> produces the 'official source release' bundle which is cited in the
> vote, and it also stages the binaries...
FWIW Sling does the same thing as per
http://sling.apache.org/documentation/development/rel
Hi,
> Regarding the license/notice being different for binary vs. source releases
> if anyone has
> pointers to examples of this that would be helpful.
As per [1] the source LICENSE should only mention what's bundled in the source
bundle and the binary LICENSE should only mention what's bundled
On Thursday, January 29, 2015, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:05 PM, jan i >
> wrote:
> > +1 (binding)
> >
> > I am a bit confused about the mangling of license/notice files in respect
> > of the source/binary releases.
> >
> > Can I please ask you to make a clear distinction
Appreciate the feedback - understand the vote is still ongoing but wanted
to acknowledge the comments.
Will investigate how to have the build process for the convenience binaries
not add the auto-generated dependencies file and for it to use our license
rather than the stock one. Will also look i
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:05 PM, jan i wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> I am a bit confused about the mangling of license/notice files in respect
> of the source/binary releases.
>
> Can I please ask you to make a clear distinction between source and binary
> (which is not official ASF release) in the ne
+1 (binding)
I am a bit confused about the mangling of license/notice files in respect
of the source/binary releases.
Can I please ask you to make a clear distinction between source and binary
(which is not official ASF release) in the next release.
On side note, I am still not quite comfortabl
The source artifacts look good. The nar and war files deployed in the
orgapachenifi-1022 repository seem to have default LICENSE files that don't
have license info for their bundled dependencies, but they do all have
DEPENDENCIES files listing this information. I haven't worked with these
depende
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> I checked (for both release artefacts):
> - signatures and hashes all good
> - incubating in source package name
> - LICENSE and NOTICE good (but complex!)
> - NOTICE has correct year
> - no unexpected b
Hi,
+1 (binding)
I checked (for both release artefacts):
- signatures and hashes all good
- incubating in source package name
- LICENSE and NOTICE good (but complex!)
- NOTICE has correct year
- no unexpected binary files (except in some test directories but that's
probably OK)
- all source file
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Joe Witt wrote:
> Hello
>
> The Apache NiFi (incubating) team is pleased to be calling this vote for
> the source release of Apache
> NiFi 0.0.1-incubating.
>
> With six binding (in the ppmc sense) +1 votes and no dissenting votes the
> PPMC has appr
Hello
The Apache NiFi (incubating) team is pleased to be calling this vote for
the source release of Apache
NiFi 0.0.1-incubating.
With six binding (in the ppmc sense) +1 votes and no dissenting votes the
PPMC has approved the vote for the release in this thread:
http://s.apache.org/nifi-rc3
We
16 matches
Mail list logo
