You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> on 2011/11/29 17:37:24 UTC
NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
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 *required* third-party notices.
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
-Bertrand
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> 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 licenses) is a great service to any
downstream project that redistributes our releases. The simpler the
NOTICE file is, the easier it is to meet the requirements of section 4
of ALv2.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> 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 the fix is already available and the RM willing
>> to do the extra effort I wouldn't stress too much about getting such
>> non-critical changes in until the next release.
>
> I would question whether these N&L errors are non-critical.
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain
>
> says
>
> "Every ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This
> requirement is of utmost importance and an audit should be performed
> before any full release is created. In particular, every artifact
> distributed must contain appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files."
>
> I read this as meaning that the N&L files are (one of) the most
> important part(s) of a release.
>
I agree they're important and we need to teach poddlings how to do
them correctly and they must not be missing things that are included
in the release, but i still say that having some unnecessary content
in the LICENSE or NOTICE is not necessarily a blocker. No one is going
to sue the ASF if a release includes a license or notice that it
actually doesn't need, so its down to the poddling to decide if they
want to respin to remove it.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> 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 the fix is already available and the RM willing
> to do the extra effort I wouldn't stress too much about getting such
> non-critical changes in until the next release.
I would question whether these N&L errors are non-critical.
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain
says
"Every ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This
requirement is of utmost importance and an audit should be performed
before any full release is created. In particular, every artifact
distributed must contain appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files."
I read this as meaning that the N&L files are (one of) the most
important part(s) of a release.
> "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" --Voltaire
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> 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 the fix is already available and the RM willing
to do the extra effort I wouldn't stress too much about getting such
non-critical changes in until the next release.
"le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" --Voltaire
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Neha Narkhede <ne...@gmail.com>.
>> 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 package had already met with general approval.
+1. Couldn't agree more.
Thanks,
Neha
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:38 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com**> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> <bd...@apache.org> 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 those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
>>> legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
>>> more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
>>> likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
>>> improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
>>>
>>
>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>> not do so and re-roll?
>>
>
> 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 package had already met with general approval.
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.**apache.org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.**org<ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>
>
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> <bd...@apache.org> 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 those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
>>> legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
>>> more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
>>> likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
>>> improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
>>
>>
>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>> not do so and re-roll?
+1
> 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 package had already met with general approval.
+1
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <bd...@apache.org> 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 those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
>> legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
>> more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
>> likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
>> improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
>
> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
> not do so and re-roll?
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 package had already met with general approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> 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://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
>> to *required* third-party notices.
>
> Yes - but what's "required" is a complex subject
>
>> 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 those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
> legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
> more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
> likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
> improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> 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://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
> to *required* third-party notices.
Yes - but what's "required" is a complex subject
> 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 those areas that's difficult and time consuming for the
legal team to get right in enough detail to allow simple fixes. Unless
more volunteers step up to help, rejecting a release for minimality is
likely to mean a lengthy delay. In general, better to note points for
improvement and have the team fix them in trunk.
Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> 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. Interpreting
the "excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the
Derivative Works" provision quickly becomes tricky if the NOTICE file
isn't well maintained.
For example, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-72 for
a case where I was having trouble tracking down whether certain
attributions really were needed for a downstream redistribution I was
working on.
> Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Not that I know of, though IANAL.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> 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 unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: NOTICE file must be minimal (was: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> 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://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
> to *required* third-party notices.
>
> I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
> release, but the next release should fix that.
That surely depends on the reason why the NOTICE file must only
contain required notices.
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
Are there any consequences for the ASF?
> -Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org