We have received 4 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1 votes)
during the release voting on kafka-users and general.
Results:
IPMC Members/Mentors:
+1 [4] 0 [0] -1 [0]
PPMC Members:
+1 [3] 0 [0] -1 [0]
The vote is successful
Voting Record:
**Chris Douglas: +1 (g) Chris Mattma
Normally the vote takes place on both lists simultaneously and all the votes
are aggregated. Can you aggregate all the votes? Thanks!
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With 4 +1 votes, this vote has passed. In addition to this, the vote has
> passe
Hi,
With 3 binding IPMC votes, this vote has passed. The following IPMC members
voted with a +1 on this release -
Chris Douglas
Chris Mattman
Arun Murthy
We will work on releasing Kafka 0.7. Thank you everyone who worked in this
release !
Thanks,
Neha
On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Arun C Mur
+1 (binding)
Verified sigs, checked NOTICE and ran tests.
Arun
On Dec 20, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kafka community is excited to share RC 9 for release of
> Kafka-0.7.0-incubating. In the interest of saving time, and with the
> expectation that the one-liner change will
+1 from me (binding).
KEYS check out:
[chipotle:~/tmp/kafka-0.7.0] mattmann% curl -O
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/kafka/KEYS
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
+1. Verified the usual stuff. Updated NOTICE looks good.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Checksum and signature match, unit tests passed. Verified that the
> only change was to the NOTICE, so checks from the previous thread
> hold. -C
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2
+1 (binding)
Checksum and signature match, unit tests passed. Verified that the
only change was to the NOTICE, so checks from the previous thread
hold. -C
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kafka community is excited to share RC 9 for release of
> Kafka-0.7.0-incubat
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share RC 9 for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating. In the interest of saving time, and with the
expectation that the one-liner change will pass the vote on
kafka-users@, we will run a vote in parallel here.
Vote thread http://markmail.org/message/sefgr5lxccty4tjz?
Sebb,
This makes sense. We will fix the NOTICE file and restart the VOTE on
general@ today.
Thanks for the feedback!
-Neha
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 20 December 2011 18:51, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Kafka community is excited to share that RC 8 for release of
On 20 December 2011 18:51, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kafka community is excited to share that RC 8 for release of
> Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
>
> Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
> release. This is the first release of K
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC 8 for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
release. This is the first release of Kafka since we've joined the
Apache incubator.
Vote thread ht
Could someone help take a look at this? This should be pretty simple. We
really want to proceed with the voting of the first release of Kafka.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE file issues. We've
>
Folks,
Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE file issues. We've
worked on the feedback and would appreciate if you could take a look and
see if there are no red flags.
Please find the LICENSE, NOTICE files and release artifacts for the next RC
here -
http://people.apache.org/~nehan
At Forrest we have stacks of supporting products to manage.
Each time that we decide to bundle a new one, we try to deal
with its license and potential notices at the time.
Read their LICENSE. If it has a "required notice" then comply
by adding it to our NOTICE file. If it does not, then there
is
Thanks Kevan.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
>> is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
>> case singular "the ASF" or t
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
> is this (B) a "third-party" work or not? Are the "parties" in this
> case singular "the ASF" or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
> include the NOTICE file from B in the
I've opened a couple LEGAL jiras on this stuff to nail it down:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119
Thanks all!
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> O
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>> http
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-no
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll open a discussion for this on the
whirr list/jira.
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
> product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
> you don't sh
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a "System Requirement"
or "Optional Plugin", then you don't need it.
ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depe
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>>> ht
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
>> Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#required-third-party-
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>> There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
>> Copyright Notice Policy [2]
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
>> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
>
> As someon
> There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
> Copyright Notice Policy [2]
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
> [2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As someone trying to generate these documents, I'm actually finding
t
On Dec 2, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
> have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
> the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
> each of these projects on top of it).
This requirement is f
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>>> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
>>> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has b
On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
>> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
>> built as a customary courtesy as part of the r
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
> kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
> built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
> includes quite a few jars that a
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
> out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
The rat community has started working on whisker[1] (and some other
tools) but we really need more vol
Kevan-
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
since binary distribut
On 1 December 2011 21:58, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
>> missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>>
>> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.h
Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
> >>> As it stands, either the
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
> missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
>
> paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
The link you reference puts this jar in the publi
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
> wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
> that are not in the LICENSE file.
>
> Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are
>> As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a bug
to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE f
On 1 December 2011 02:29, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
> and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
>
> http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
There are spurious "===" lines at the top of the fil
n 3rd party licenses.
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkh...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: kafka-us...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and
.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: kafka-us...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Also, we haven't ignored the fact that the NOTICE file must ideally be as
short as possible.
To track this issue, we've filed a bug -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-219 and will be fixing it for
the next release.
Thanks,
Neha
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
http:/
On 30 November 2011 14:11, Leo Simons wrote:
> Yupyup. I thought I'd add a little background rant here, that I wrote
> for the jena podling a bit ago. Purely optional reading but maybe
> illuminating for some.
>
> cheerio,
>
> - Leo
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
>> On Fri,
Yupyup. I thought I'd add a little background rant here, that I wrote
for the jena podling a bit ago. Purely optional reading but maybe
illuminating for some.
cheerio,
- Leo
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Relea
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The context for this is the discussion here -
> http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
>
> We would like to know if it is OK to
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>>> not do so and re-roll?
>>
>> I'd just leave that up to the releas
On 11/29/2011 7:50 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Yes, if you let the 72 hour vote run through with a clear message that
it will be rerolled with a short vote.
If every
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Thanks,
Neha
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkh
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a poi
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a point to 2) to running serial votes. You need only 3
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The context for this is the discussion here -
> http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
>
> This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
>
> We would like to know if it is OK to e
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>> not do so and re-roll?
>
> I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
>
> There's no such thing as a perf
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
> not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software
has errors), so unless t
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> wrote:
>>>
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warran
>> One "shortcut" that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the p
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
This is one of th
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>
>> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
>> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 re
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
To users no, to redistributors yes.
Section 4 of ALv2 makes the "attribution notices contained within" the
NOTICE file mandatory for any downstream distribution. Interpre
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
>
> Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Depends but potentially in some cases, yes.
Robert
-
To unsub
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
>
> It think it *is* a requirement, according to
> http:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
> release, but the next release should fix that.
Agreed.
For some background: Keeping the NOTICE file as lean as possible
(given constraints from upstream li
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
>
> It think it *is* a requirement, according to
> http://apac
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
to *re
On 28 November 2011 21:17, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
>>
>> 1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
>> since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutti
On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
>
> 1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
> since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutting RCs is a significant
> time investment, we'd appreciat
Thanks Alan for summarizing the issues!
>> We can perform all the other suggestions in a subsequent release.
Sebb also had a suggestion about release candidate tags. The kafka
community had discussed this and felt that creating a release tag is more
convenient to do when a vote passes. Until then
On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
>
> 1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
> since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutting RCs is a significant
> time investment, we'd appreciate
Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutting RCs is a significant
time investment, we'd appreciate if you could list all the concerns you
have once.
2. Sebb, i
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
>
> On N
On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>> wrote:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Ala
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>>
Alan,
>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took
On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>>
>>> Alan,
>>>
> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
>>> was my understanding that votes ta
On 23 November 2011 23:52, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
> Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator. Please
> try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release. This is
> the first release of Kafka
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
>
>> Alan,
>>
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
>> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
>>
>> Because the only change was in the NOTICE
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened. I could be wrong. If it can
> then I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this release.
> I'm sorry it's had so many first and starts.
As long as the only modifications bro
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Alan,
>
>>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
> was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
>
> Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
> previous RC, our champion (Chris C)
Alan,
>> It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker lazy
24 hour vote.
>> Anyway, I
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it was my
understanding that votes take 72 hours.
Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that Kafka uses/ship
NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file.
-1
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Neha Narkhe
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator. Please
try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release. This is
the first release of Kafka since we've joined the Apache incubator.
Based on the feed
On 18 November 2011 19:33, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:01 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>>
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 16:
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:01 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao wrote:
> Sebb,
>
> Just to want t
On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao wrote:
>>> Sebb,
>>>
>>> Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
>>> other Apache projects that release a single distribution wi
On 18 November 2011 08:10, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM, sebb wrote:
>> The sponsoring entity is normally the Incubator, sometimes another PMC.
>> According to podlings.xml the sponsor is the Incubator, so please fix the
>> site.
>
> Woah, I hadn't seen that; fixed. Als
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM, sebb wrote:
> The sponsoring entity is normally the Incubator, sometimes another PMC.
> According to podlings.xml the sponsor is the Incubator, so please fix the
> site.
Woah, I hadn't seen that; fixed. Also fixed a reference to Apache
Flume (incubating), though
On 18 November 2011 02:17, Chris Douglas wrote:
> Thanks Sebb and Kevan. This is helpful.
>
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> 1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the
>> LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects the license/notice requirements of
Thanks Sebb and Kevan. This is helpful.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> 1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the
> LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects the license/notice requirements of
> these jar files.
> 2) Why are these jars being stored
I took a look at the svn source and the binary artifact and have some
additional comments.
1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the
LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects the license/notice requirements of these
jar files.
2) Why are these jars being stored in your s
sebb wrote:
> Jun Rao wrote:
> > Sebb,
> >
> > Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
> > other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
> > code and jars. For example,
> > http://mirror.metrocast.net/apache//zookeeper/zookeeper-3.3.3/ . So
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao wrote:
>> Sebb,
>>
>> Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
>> other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
>> code and jars. For example,
>> http://mirror
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao wrote:
> Sebb,
>
> Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
> other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
> code and jars. For example,
> http://mirror.metrocast.net/apache//zookeeper/zookeeper-3.3.3/ .
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
code and jars. For example,
http://mirror.metrocast.net/apache//zookeeper/zookeeper-3.3.3/ . So, is
source distribution strictly required?
Thanks,
On 15 November 2011 15:05, Jun Rao wrote:
> The distribution does include source code in it. Are you saying that we
> should have a separate source distribution with no jars in it?
Yes, that is the normal way to do things.
The source archive should basically be a copy of the SVN tag,
excluding a
The distribution does include source code in it. Are you saying that we
should have a separate source distribution with no jars in it?
Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 14 November 2011 19:52, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Kafka community is excited to share
On 14 November 2011 19:52, Neha Narkhede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
> Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
> Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release.
> This is the first release of Kafka
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release.
This is the first release of Kafka since we've joined the Apache incubator.
Vote thread
http:
96 matches
Mail list logo
