[RESULT][VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-13 Thread James Sirota
This vote passed with +1s (all binding) Billie Rinaldi Josh Elser Justin Mclean Thanks, James On 10/13/16, 7:32 AM, "Billie Rinaldi" wrote: >+1 binding > >- checked signatures and hashes >- source tarball matches the tag >- builds from source with unit tests passing >- disclaimer is good >

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-13 Thread Billie Rinaldi
+1 binding - checked signatures and hashes - source tarball matches the tag - builds from source with unit tests passing - disclaimer is good - no unexpected binaries Please address the comments from Justin and Josh before the next release. Billie James Sirota wrote: > This is a call to vote o

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-06 Thread Josh Elser
Hi David, Typically, if you want to have to separately-released software packages under Metron, you would either have separate repositories or separate Maven builds (in the same repository). It seems strange to me that you're essentially "releasing" the MPack (with a SNAPSHOT version?) with M

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-06 Thread Josh Elser
Hi Casey, I noticed two things in my casual glance: 1) META-INF/NOTICE says "Curator Service Discovery", not "Apache Metron" (and META-INF/NOTICE.txt is for commons-cli) 2) I see that commons-math3 is included, and I am nearly 100% positive that there ware are NOTICE entries that need to be pr

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-06 Thread Casey Stella
Hey Josh, Thanks for looking so carefully again. Regarding the metron-common jar, could you be more specific how it's not correct? We placed a licenses file[1] in the META-INF directory for all of the jars which bundle components that have blurbs mentioning the permissive licenses. Is there som

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-06 Thread David Lyle
Hi Josh, Thanks for taking a peek at the release. On the MPack- we'd like to version it separately from the Metron release. Does that create any issue (other than unintended confusion :) ) ? Thanks again! -David... On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Josh Elser wrote: > +1 (binding) > > * xsums

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-05 Thread Josh Elser
+1 (binding) * xsums/sigs OK (I think this is the second release, I think both from Metron, where firefox butchers the SHA xsum -- I have no idea why though. wget is fine) * L&N are OK. Some extra cruft in LICENSE file, but the main content is there. * Can build from source * Found no binarie

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-05 Thread Justin Mclean
Hi, +1 binding I checked: - name includes incubating - signatures and hashed are good - LICENSE is missing a licence (see below) - NOTICE is good - A file are missing apache headers [4], all others are good - No unexpected binary files in release - Can compile from source This file [1] incorre

[VOTE] Releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2

2016-10-03 Thread James Sirota
This is a call to vote on releasing Apache Metron 0.2.1BETA-RC2 incubating Full list of changes in this release: https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/metron/0.2.1BETA-RC2-incubating/CHANGES The tag/commit to be voted upon is Metron_0.2.1BETA_rc2: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/