You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org> on 2016/03/06 19:20:55 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Hi,
The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2 passed and I'm
now submitting this to the IPMC.
Vote thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNfBpLCqYEeArpDUFM0EUvW-aOUHDpCtCQARetHTY%2BUACw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Result:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdH-pK_cmoxXzTag5T0G9Bm6jqN-7Bf%3DcQjX1vrrpnUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC2/
Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
There's already one binding +1 from Todd Lipcon.
Thanks,
J-D
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>.
It was built from this tag:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-kudu.git;a=commit;h=dd1757f2f44ab36a24a4503cb7920f3530dab08c
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:34 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2 passed and
> I'm
> > now submitting this to the IPMC.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNfBpLCqYEeArpDUFM0EUvW-aOUHDpCtCQARetHTY%2BUACw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > Result:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdH-pK_cmoxXzTag5T0G9Bm6jqN-7Bf%3DcQjX1vrrpnUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC2/
> >
> > Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > There's already one binding +1 from Todd Lipcon.
> >
> >
> Would you mind following the incubator release best practice from
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-incubator-release-vote
> and
> include the link to the git commit for tag?
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > J-D
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2 passed and I'm
> now submitting this to the IPMC.
>
> Vote thread:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNfBpLCqYEeArpDUFM0EUvW-aOUHDpCtCQARetHTY%2BUACw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Result:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdH-pK_cmoxXzTag5T0G9Bm6jqN-7Bf%3DcQjX1vrrpnUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC2/
>
> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> There's already one binding +1 from Todd Lipcon.
>
>
Would you mind following the incubator release best practice from
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#best-practice-incubator-release-vote
and
include the link to the git commit for tag?
> Thanks,
>
> J-D
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> OK. Are you suggesting that for our next release we go back to fully
> copying all licenses into LICENSE.txt rather than providing pointers? (i.e.
> essentially reverting back to what we did for 0.7.0?)
The short form is currently preferred. In license [1] you have the full text of most licenses and some pointers to others. Just seems a little inconsistent and makes it harder to review. The changed explanation text in license now does make it a little clearer.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://github.com/cloudera/kudu/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The specific cases of BSD-licensed software here is FindProtobuf.cmake,
> which
> > is a build-time-only dependency and does not become part of the binary
> > distribution.
>
> If there is a binary distribution why was it not voted on at the same
> time? Normally if something is the binary and not in the source your need a
> different LICENSE file for each type of release. [1][2]
>
There is no binary distribution, but we do want to make life easier for
downstream distributors (so they don't have to go on license scavenger
hunts). That's why the license file makes reference to binary distributions.
The above case refers to a file which is part of the source distribution
but _not_ the binary distribution. In that case, we provide a "pointer" to
the source, which has the license, rather than copy-pasting the license (as
discussed in the 0.7.0RC3 release thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201603.mbox/%3CCADY20s4RWd45kG7%2BrkAkkNg5Hh_7%2Bfy2LtSqh_ouhdXVccwLFQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
)
>
> > Yes, that's what I thought, but in your previous vote, I understood that
> > you and others preferred the LICENSE.txt file to be "minimal" and include
> > "pointers" in cases where the license didn't _require_ the full text to
> be
> > reproduced.
>
> Legally AFAICS it meet the terms of the license. it’s just not consistent
> (i.e. mixing long and short forms of licenses) and may cause some confusion
> for anyone looking into it.
>
OK. Are you suggesting that for our next release we go back to fully
copying all licenses into LICENSE.txt rather than providing pointers? (i.e.
essentially reverting back to what we did for 0.7.0?)
>
> > https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4
> <https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4>
>
> Subtle difference it says “BSD-style” (which in this context I think just
> means permissive). Compare the clauses in zlib and BSD and you see it’s
> zlib. Given they both permissive and both compatible with Apache it’s a
> very minor issue.
>
Right, it has some clauses from BSD and some from zlib. (it's not identical
to zlib either afaict). If you prefer we say "BSD style" instead of "Hybrid
BSD" I can make that change.
-Todd
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> The specific cases of BSD-licensed software here is FindProtobuf.cmake, which
> is a build-time-only dependency and does not become part of the binary
> distribution.
If there is a binary distribution why was it not voted on at the same time? Normally if something is the binary and not in the source your need a different LICENSE file for each type of release. [1][2]
> Yes, that's what I thought, but in your previous vote, I understood that
> you and others preferred the LICENSE.txt file to be "minimal" and include
> "pointers" in cases where the license didn't _require_ the full text to be
> reproduced.
Legally AFAICS it meet the terms of the license. it’s just not consistent (i.e. mixing long and short forms of licenses) and may cause some confusion for anyone looking into it.
> https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4 <https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4>
Subtle difference it says “BSD-style” (which in this context I think just means permissive). Compare the clauses in zlib and BSD and you see it’s zlib. Given they both permissive and both compatible with Apache it’s a very minor issue.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Todd Lipcon <to...@cloudera.com>.
Hi Justin,
Thanks for voting (and for your +1 despite there being some questions).
Responses inline:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 binding
>
> I checked:
> - signatures and hashes fine
> - name contains incubating
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> - No unexpected binaries
> - Source file have apache headers (some have extra ones)
> - Can compile on OS X (but it takes a while)
>
> I still think there’s a couple of minor issues with license.
> - For instance the added text "The following dependencies or pieces of
> incorporated source code have licenses such that either:...” is IMO
> incorrect. For instance BSD requires license to be both in source and
> binary distributions.
>
Right, that's true that the BSD license does require that (and that's why
most of the other licenses above in the file are for BSD source). The
specific cases of BSD-licensed software here is FindProtobuf.cmake, which
is a build-time-only dependency and does not become part of the binary
distribution. I should add a note to clarify that.
> - It’s unclear why the 1/2 dozen non Apache license software listed under
> this text are treated in a different way to the other bundled
> software.Wouldn’t it be better to be consistent and handle all licenses
> the same way?
>
Yes, that's what I thought, but in your previous vote, I understood that
you and others preferred the LICENSE.txt file to be "minimal" and include
"pointers" in cases where the license didn't _require_ the full text to be
reproduced. I'm happy to revert the change we made for this release and go
back to what we did in the previous one, but I thought this was what was
requested.
> - This file [1] isn’t BSD as noted in the license but a modified zlib,
> notice the clauses about modifications
>
> The license file says "half BSD, half zlib". The file self-describes as a
"BSD-style license":
https://github.com/svn2github/valgrind/blob/master/include/valgrind.h#L4
But as you noted, it has some zlib-like clauses. So I think "half BSD half
zlib" is relatively accurate, no?
There also looks to be some minor issues with Apache headers in several
> files
>
> Several files have double Apache headers. For instance in src/kudu/util:
> bit-stream-utils.h, bit-stream-utils.inline.h, bit-util-test.cc,
> bit-util.h, logging.cclogging.h, rle-encoding.h, rle-test.cc,
> url-coding-test.cc, url-coding.h
>
Thanks. I think these were files that we borrowed from Apache Impala
(incubating) at some point when it already had the license header, and our
scripting which prepended the header got them wrong. Will fix.
> It also may be that Apache headers have been added to files that shouldn’t
> have them? For Instance [2] is stated as BSD in the license file but has
> an Apache header. Was the original header removed? Also [3] has an Apache
> header but notes it's BSD licensed. These are not the only examples.
>
Aha, I see what happened with random-util.{cc,h}. In fact these files were
authored as part of Kudu, and _not_ BSD licensed. The mention of them in
LICENSE.txt is a hold-over from an earlier revision which contained some a
single function from WebRTC. That code was later refactored into random.h
as Random::Normal(...). We should just update the LICENSE.txt file to say
that random.h contains the BSD-licensed code and not random_util.cc.
I'll try to take a swing through for any other double-licensed stuff I can
find.
-Todd
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- signatures and hashes fine
- name contains incubating
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- No unexpected binaries
- Source file have apache headers (some have extra ones)
- Can compile on OS X (but it takes a while)
I still think there’s a couple of minor issues with license.
- For instance the added text "The following dependencies or pieces of incorporated source code have licenses such that either:...” is IMO incorrect. For instance BSD requires license to be both in source and binary distributions.
- It’s unclear why the 1/2 dozen non Apache license software listed under this text are treated in a different way to the other bundled software.Wouldn’t it be better to be consistent and handle all licenses the same way?
- This file [1] isn’t BSD as noted in the license but a modified zlib, notice the clauses about modifications
There also looks to be some minor issues with Apache headers in several files
Several files have double Apache headers. For instance in src/kudu/util:
bit-stream-utils.h, bit-stream-utils.inline.h, bit-util-test.cc, bit-util.h, logging.cclogging.h, rle-encoding.h, rle-test.cc, url-coding-test.cc, url-coding.h
It also may be that Apache headers have been added to files that shouldn’t have them? For Instance [2] is stated as BSD in the license file but has an Apache header. Was the original header removed? Also [3] has an Apache header but notes it's BSD licensed. These are not the only examples.
Thanks,
Justin
1. src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h
2. src/kudu/util/random-util.cc
3. src/kudu/util/sync_point.cc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
+1 (binding)
Checked signature, hash, and compared tarball to git tag. Built it
successfully. Ran unit tests. Poked around. Licenses look good.
St.Ack
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2 passed and I'm
> now submitting this to the IPMC.
>
> Vote thread:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNfBpLCqYEeArpDUFM0EUvW-aOUHDpCtCQARetHTY%2BUACw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Result:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdH-pK_cmoxXzTag5T0G9Bm6jqN-7Bf%3DcQjX1vrrpnUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC2/
>
> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> There's already one binding +1 from Todd Lipcon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> J-D
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
+1 (binding)
Checked signature, hash, and compared tarball to git tag. Built it
successfully. Ran unit tests. Poked around. Licenses look good.
St.Ack
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jean-Daniel Cryans <jd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache Kudu (incubating) 0.7.1 RC2 passed and I'm
> now submitting this to the IPMC.
>
> Vote thread:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNfBpLCqYEeArpDUFM0EUvW-aOUHDpCtCQARetHTY%2BUACw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> Result:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-kudu-dev/201603.mbox/%3CCAGpTDNdH-pK_cmoxXzTag5T0G9Bm6jqN-7Bf%3DcQjX1vrrpnUxw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The is a source-only release. The artifacts were staged here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/kudu/0.7.1-RC2/
>
> Please try the release and vote; vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> There's already one binding +1 from Todd Lipcon.
>
> Thanks,
>
> J-D
>