You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> on 2014/03/25 17:39:34 UTC
[VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Hi everyone,
This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix
is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed
as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This
is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of
Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release
includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release.
New features include:
- Equi-joins through broadcast hash join
- Shared tables over same physical HBase table
- Read-only and updatable views
- Multi-tenancy
- JDBC ARRAY type
- Sequence creation and usage
The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be
found at:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
The binary artifacts can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/
Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
KEYS file available here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
The tag to be voted upon:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
For information about the contents of this release see:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
Release notes
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145&styleName=Text&projectId=12315120&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin
Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
Thanks,
James
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other
> items
> > > are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
> > > bundled in our binary distribution.
> >
> > I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries.
> > They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code -
> > and indeed also contain phoenix code.
> >
> > That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could
> > mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code.
> >
> > It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming
> > licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party
> > code with ASF code in a single jar.
> > Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly
> > other dependency management systems.
>
>
> I believe this is done because Phoenix is a JDBC client, and JDBC drivers
> are usually packaged as single JARs for convenience. James could confirm or
> refute. I concluded this is acceptable practice having seen it elsewhere at
> Apache, for example in Apache Pig, their convenience fatjar artifact.
>
> Yes, that's correct. It's because then a third-party tool (such as a SQL
client GUI) then only need to pull in a single jar to be able to connect
through the Phoenix JDBC driver to HBase. Our initial (pre-Apache) releases
didn't do this and it was almost impossible to get the classpath correct
for the "minimal" client-side dependencies.
So the remaining question: should we spin up a new RC for these changes and
if so, should we go through a vote again on our dev list as well?
Thanks again for all the help.
James
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items
> > are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
> > bundled in our binary distribution.
>
> I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries.
> They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code -
> and indeed also contain phoenix code.
>
> That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could
> mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code.
>
> It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming
> licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party
> code with ASF code in a single jar.
> Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly
> other dependency management systems.
I believe this is done because Phoenix is a JDBC client, and JDBC drivers
are usually packaged as single JARs for convenience. James could confirm or
refute. I concluded this is acceptable practice having seen it elsewhere at
Apache, for example in Apache Pig, their convenience fatjar artifact.
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
(sorry, meant instead of listing these in our NOTICE file)
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>wrote:
> Ah, I see. Thanks, Sebb. So we should modify our LICENSE file as indicated
> in http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps instead
> of listing these in our LICENSE file. Since all licenses are either Apache
> or BSD, this should be fine.
>
> I'm still a bit confused about one thing, though. The above link says "add
> a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree". For
> sqlline, we bundle it, but have no source dependencies on it. It's used as
> a command line terminal interface. Is this pointer optional then? We could
> point to the python script that invokes it - would that be correct?
>
> For our HBase dependencies, we have many places in the source that call
> HBase APIs. Do we just list one of them?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3
>> license.
>> > We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE
>> file.
>> > Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file?
>>
>> Depends on its license.
>>
>> > Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items
>> > are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
>> > bundled in our binary distribution.
>>
>> I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries.
>> They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code -
>> and indeed also contain phoenix code.
>>
>> That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could
>> mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code.
>>
>> It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming
>> licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party
>> code with ASF code in a single jar.
>> Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly
>> other dependency management systems.
>>
>> > That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct?
>>
>> As I already wrote, not necessarily.
>> You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses
>> must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the
>> LICENSE file or locally linked from it.
>> Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> See for example
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>
>> > Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either
>> > Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3.
>>
>> But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what
>> license.
>>
>> again, see
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>
>> > Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1].
>>
>> As am I ...
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > James
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you
>> spending
>> >> > your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
>> >> > 1) In the binary bundle:
>> >> > a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE
>> file
>> >> > in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
>> >>
>> >> It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in
>> >> the NOTICE file.
>> >> Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct.
>> >>
>> >> > b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
>> >> > c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are
>> >> bundled
>> >> > with our binary distribution.
>> >>
>> >> Are you sure?
>> >> Even JUnit and ANTLR?
>> >>
>> >> Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry
>> >> is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry.
>> >>
>> >> > 2) In the source bundle:
>> >> > a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the
>> src
>> >> > bundle
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> > b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
>> >> > reflected in git:
>> >> > - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our
>> website
>> >> so
>> >> > should not be included in our git repo)
>> >>
>> >> OK
>> >>
>> >> > - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
>> >>
>> >> Not OK.
>> >>
>> >> > - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not
>> checked
>> >> > into git.
>> >>
>> >> The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag.
>> >>
>> >> The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source
>> >> bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are
>> >> allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git
>> >> (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and
>> >> difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license.
>> >>
>> >> > - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but
>> instead
>> >> a
>> >> > README file is included instead.
>> >>
>> >> The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation
>> >> should be included.
>> >>
>> >> > For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those
>> changes to
>> >> > git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
>> >>
>> >> Not sure what you are proposing.
>> >>
>> >> The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle
>> >> agrees with the tag.
>> >> Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the
>> >> contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released
>> >> under the Apache License.
>> >>
>> >> > Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary
>> bundle?
>> >> > Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not,
>> would
>> >> we
>> >> > need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
>> >>
>> >> See above.
>> >>
>> >> > FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our
>> next
>> >> > release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > James
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org
>> >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can we add a "Releasing" page to
>> http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that
>> >> >> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release.
>> We
>> >> can
>> >> >> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs.
>> This
>> >> >> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your
>> >> process
>> >> >> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA,
>> >> saving
>> >> >> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating
>> >> binary
>> >> >> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing
>> the
>> >> >> tarballs, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are
>> there.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does
>> this
>> >> >> > require
>> >> >> > > a new RC?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging
>> >> error.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary
>> >> NOTICE
>> >> >> > file.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not
>> agree
>> >> >> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty
>> in
>> >> >> > that regard.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back
>> to
>> >> >> > the source code control system.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <
>> jamestaylor@apache.org>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >> [...]
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc
>> can be
>> >> >> found
>> >> >> > >> at:
>> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source
>> bundle,
>> >> and
>> >> >> no
>> >> >> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> > Where are those?
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> In the source bundle.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> > $ wget
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> That's the binary bundle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Andy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>> >> >> (via Tom White)
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 26 March 2014 00:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26 March 2014 00:23, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I think I was confused by the
>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-depsinstructions.
>>
>> What is confusing about that?
>> If it is not clear, how could it be made clearer?
>>
>> The instructions are clear. It's just not simple to get right. Maybe it's
> just one of those things you have to do wrong once. Maybe a simple
> end-2-end example would help for a example project with both:
> - a non ASF dependency and
> - an ASF dependency that include a non ASF dependency
Dependencies are irrelevant.
Only the actual contents of the bundle matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 March 2014 00:23, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think I was confused by the
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-depsinstructions.
>
> What is confusing about that?
> If it is not clear, how could it be made clearer?
>
> The instructions are clear. It's just not simple to get right. Maybe it's
just one of those things you have to do wrong once. Maybe a simple
end-2-end example would help for a example project with both:
- a non ASF dependency and
- an ASF dependency that include a non ASF dependency
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 26 March 2014 00:23, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> HBase is ASF code surely?
>> So why does it need mentioning? - unless its NOTICE file has some
>> attributions that relate to what you are bundling
>>
>
> Yes, HBase is ASF code. The other stuff we've listed are the transitive
> dependencies of HBase. Do we list then only the non ASF transitive
> dependencies in our LICENSE file? I think I was confused by the
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-deps instructions.
What is confusing about that?
If it is not clear, how could it be made clearer?
> Would it be ok if I attached a modified LICENSE file for review here?
Please don't include the full license text.
Just include what you propose to append to the standard AL 2.0 file.
> Our
> NOTICE file will be modified to include only the bare minimum as described
> here: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
That's fine provided that there are no requirements for attribution,
.
Remember also that the NOTICE (and LICENSE) files relate to the "bits
that are bundled" so may be different for source and binary releases.
> Thanks,
> James
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:07 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> HBase is ASF code surely?
> So why does it need mentioning? - unless its NOTICE file has some
> attributions that relate to what you are bundling
>
Yes, HBase is ASF code. The other stuff we've listed are the transitive
dependencies of HBase. Do we list then only the non ASF transitive
dependencies in our LICENSE file? I think I was confused by the
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#deps-of-deps instructions.
Would it be ok if I attached a modified LICENSE file for review here? Our
NOTICE file will be modified to include only the bare minimum as described
here: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple
Thanks,
James
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 23:48, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ah, I see. Thanks, Sebb. So we should modify our LICENSE file as indicated
> in http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps instead
> of listing these in our LICENSE file. Since all licenses are either Apache
> or BSD, this should be fine.
>
> I'm still a bit confused about one thing, though. The above link says "add
> a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree". For
> sqlline, we bundle it, but have no source dependencies on it. It's used as
> a command line terminal interface. Is this pointer optional then? We could
> point to the python script that invokes it - would that be correct?
AFAIK the pointer is to the _license_, as shown in the example beneath.
[I'll see about clarifying that]
Since the BSD license is so short, you may prefer to include in the
LICENSE file itself rather than creating a separate file and pointing
to that.
If several products have the identical license, just list them together.
Please include the 3rd party version details (as per the example);
it's not unknown for licenses to change between versions.
> For our HBase dependencies, we have many places in the source that call
> HBase APIs. Do we just list one of them?
HBase is ASF code surely?
So why does it need mentioning? - unless its NOTICE file has some
attributions that relate to what you are bundling
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license.
>> > We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE
>> file.
>> > Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file?
>>
>> Depends on its license.
>>
>> > Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items
>> > are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
>> > bundled in our binary distribution.
>>
>> I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries.
>> They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code -
>> and indeed also contain phoenix code.
>>
>> That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could
>> mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code.
>>
>> It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming
>> licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party
>> code with ASF code in a single jar.
>> Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly
>> other dependency management systems.
>>
>> > That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct?
>>
>> As I already wrote, not necessarily.
>> You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses
>> must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the
>> LICENSE file or locally linked from it.
>> Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file.
>>
>> See for example
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>
>> > Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either
>> > Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3.
>>
>> But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what
>> license.
>>
>> again, see
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>>
>> > Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1].
>>
>> As am I ...
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > James
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you
>> spending
>> >> > your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
>> >> > 1) In the binary bundle:
>> >> > a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE
>> file
>> >> > in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
>> >>
>> >> It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in
>> >> the NOTICE file.
>> >> Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct.
>> >>
>> >> > b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
>> >> > c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are
>> >> bundled
>> >> > with our binary distribution.
>> >>
>> >> Are you sure?
>> >> Even JUnit and ANTLR?
>> >>
>> >> Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry
>> >> is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry.
>> >>
>> >> > 2) In the source bundle:
>> >> > a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src
>> >> > bundle
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> > b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
>> >> > reflected in git:
>> >> > - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our
>> website
>> >> so
>> >> > should not be included in our git repo)
>> >>
>> >> OK
>> >>
>> >> > - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
>> >>
>> >> Not OK.
>> >>
>> >> > - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not
>> checked
>> >> > into git.
>> >>
>> >> The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag.
>> >>
>> >> The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source
>> >> bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are
>> >> allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git
>> >> (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and
>> >> difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license.
>> >>
>> >> > - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but
>> instead
>> >> a
>> >> > README file is included instead.
>> >>
>> >> The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation
>> >> should be included.
>> >>
>> >> > For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes
>> to
>> >> > git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
>> >>
>> >> Not sure what you are proposing.
>> >>
>> >> The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle
>> >> agrees with the tag.
>> >> Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the
>> >> contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released
>> >> under the Apache License.
>> >>
>> >> > Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary
>> bundle?
>> >> > Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not,
>> would
>> >> we
>> >> > need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
>> >>
>> >> See above.
>> >>
>> >> > FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our
>> next
>> >> > release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
>> >>
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> > James
>> >> >
>> >> > [1]
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can we add a "Releasing" page to
>> http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that
>> >> >> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release.
>> We
>> >> can
>> >> >> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs.
>> This
>> >> >> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your
>> >> process
>> >> >> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA,
>> >> saving
>> >> >> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating
>> >> binary
>> >> >> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing
>> the
>> >> >> tarballs, etc.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are
>> there.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does
>> this
>> >> >> > require
>> >> >> > > a new RC?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging
>> >> error.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary
>> >> NOTICE
>> >> >> > file.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
>> >> >> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
>> >> >> > that regard.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back
>> to
>> >> >> > the source code control system.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
>> >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >> >> [...]
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can
>> be
>> >> >> found
>> >> >> > >> at:
>> >> >> > >> >> >
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>> >> >> > >> >>
>> >> >> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle,
>> >> and
>> >> >> no
>> >> >> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >> > Where are those?
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> In the source bundle.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> > $ wget
>> >> >> > >> >
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> That's the binary bundle.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Andy
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
>> Hein
>> >> >> (via Tom White)
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> 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
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Ah, I see. Thanks, Sebb. So we should modify our LICENSE file as indicated
in http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps instead
of listing these in our LICENSE file. Since all licenses are either Apache
or BSD, this should be fine.
I'm still a bit confused about one thing, though. The above link says "add
a pointer to the dependency's location within the source tree". For
sqlline, we bundle it, but have no source dependencies on it. It's used as
a command line terminal interface. Is this pointer optional then? We could
point to the python script that invokes it - would that be correct?
For our HBase dependencies, we have many places in the source that call
HBase APIs. Do we just list one of them?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license.
> > We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE
> file.
> > Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file?
>
> Depends on its license.
>
> > Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items
> > are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
> > bundled in our binary distribution.
>
> I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries.
> They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code -
> and indeed also contain phoenix code.
>
> That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could
> mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code.
>
> It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming
> licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party
> code with ASF code in a single jar.
> Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly
> other dependency management systems.
>
> > That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct?
>
> As I already wrote, not necessarily.
> You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses
> must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the
> LICENSE file or locally linked from it.
> Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file.
>
> See for example
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>
> > Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either
> > Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3.
>
> But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what
> license.
>
> again, see
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
>
> > Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1].
>
> As am I ...
>
> > Thanks,
> > James
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you
> spending
> >> > your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
> >> > 1) In the binary bundle:
> >> > a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE
> file
> >> > in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
> >>
> >> It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in
> >> the NOTICE file.
> >> Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct.
> >>
> >> > b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
> >> > c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are
> >> bundled
> >> > with our binary distribution.
> >>
> >> Are you sure?
> >> Even JUnit and ANTLR?
> >>
> >> Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry
> >> is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry.
> >>
> >> > 2) In the source bundle:
> >> > a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src
> >> > bundle
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> > b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
> >> > reflected in git:
> >> > - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our
> website
> >> so
> >> > should not be included in our git repo)
> >>
> >> OK
> >>
> >> > - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
> >>
> >> Not OK.
> >>
> >> > - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not
> checked
> >> > into git.
> >>
> >> The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag.
> >>
> >> The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source
> >> bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are
> >> allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git
> >> (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and
> >> difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license.
> >>
> >> > - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but
> instead
> >> a
> >> > README file is included instead.
> >>
> >> The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation
> >> should be included.
> >>
> >> > For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes
> to
> >> > git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
> >>
> >> Not sure what you are proposing.
> >>
> >> The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle
> >> agrees with the tag.
> >> Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the
> >> contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released
> >> under the Apache License.
> >>
> >> > Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary
> bundle?
> >> > Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not,
> would
> >> we
> >> > need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
> >>
> >> See above.
> >>
> >> > FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our
> next
> >> > release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
> >>
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > James
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> >
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
> >> >>
> >> >> Can we add a "Releasing" page to
> http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that
> >> >> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release.
> We
> >> can
> >> >> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs.
> This
> >> >> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your
> >> process
> >> >> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA,
> >> saving
> >> >> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating
> >> binary
> >> >> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing
> the
> >> >> tarballs, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are
> there.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does
> this
> >> >> > require
> >> >> > > a new RC?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging
> >> error.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary
> >> NOTICE
> >> >> > file.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
> >> >> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
> >> >> > that regard.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back
> to
> >> >> > the source code control system.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <jamestaylor@apache.org
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > >> >> [...]
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can
> be
> >> >> found
> >> >> > >> at:
> >> >> > >> >> >
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
> >> >> > >> >>
> >> >> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle,
> >> and
> >> >> no
> >> >> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> > Where are those?
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> In the source bundle.
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> > $ wget
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> That's the binary bundle.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Best regards,
> >> >>
> >> >> - Andy
> >> >>
> >> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet
> Hein
> >> >> (via Tom White)
> >> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 23:06, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license.
> We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file.
> Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file?
Depends on its license.
> Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items
> are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
> bundled in our binary distribution.
I see now why I did not notice the 3rd party binaries.
They seem to have been merged into jars which look like phoenix code -
and indeed also contain phoenix code.
That is a very non-standard way to do things, and I think could
mislead end-users as to the provenance of the code.
It's OK to bundle separate jars in a binary release (assuming
licensing etc is OK), but I don't think it's OK to merge 3rd party
code with ASF code in a single jar.
Apart from anything, that will play havoc with Maven and possibly
other dependency management systems.
> That's why we included them in the NOTICE file. Is this correct?
As I already wrote, not necessarily.
You can only include certain license types; in all cases the licenses
must be included in the bundle - either actually included in the
LICENSE file or locally linked from it.
Some licenses may require attribution in the NOTICE file.
See for example
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either
> Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3.
But there is no indication as to which 3rd party software uses what license.
again, see
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1].
As am I ...
> Thanks,
> James
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending
>> > your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
>> > 1) In the binary bundle:
>> > a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file
>> > in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
>>
>> It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in
>> the NOTICE file.
>> Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct.
>>
>> > b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
>> > c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are
>> bundled
>> > with our binary distribution.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>> Even JUnit and ANTLR?
>>
>> Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry
>> is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry.
>>
>> > 2) In the source bundle:
>> > a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src
>> > bundle
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> > b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
>> > reflected in git:
>> > - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website
>> so
>> > should not be included in our git repo)
>>
>> OK
>>
>> > - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
>>
>> Not OK.
>>
>> > - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked
>> > into git.
>>
>> The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag.
>>
>> The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source
>> bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are
>> allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git
>> (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and
>> difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license.
>>
>> > - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead
>> a
>> > README file is included instead.
>>
>> The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation
>> should be included.
>>
>> > For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to
>> > git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
>>
>> Not sure what you are proposing.
>>
>> The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle
>> agrees with the tag.
>> Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the
>> contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released
>> under the Apache License.
>>
>> > Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle?
>> > Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would
>> we
>> > need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> > FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next
>> > release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
>>
>> > Thanks,
>> > James
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
>> >>
>> >> Can we add a "Releasing" page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that
>> >> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We
>> can
>> >> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This
>> >> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your
>> process
>> >> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA,
>> saving
>> >> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating
>> binary
>> >> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the
>> >> tarballs, etc.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this
>> >> > require
>> >> > > a new RC?
>> >> >
>> >> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging
>> error.
>> >> >
>> >> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary
>> NOTICE
>> >> > file.
>> >> >
>> >> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
>> >> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
>> >> > that regard.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to
>> >> > the source code control system.
>> >> >
>> >> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >> >> [...]
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be
>> >> found
>> >> > >> at:
>> >> > >> >> >
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>> >> > >> >>
>> >> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle,
>> and
>> >> no
>> >> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > Where are those?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> In the source bundle.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> > $ wget
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> That's the binary bundle.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> - Andy
>> >>
>> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> >> (via Tom White)
>> >>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 26 March 2014 22:45, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Marvin -
> The one example in that email thread (airavata), has a bunch of copyright
> notices in there NOTICE file:
> https://github.com/apache/airavata/blob/master/modules/distribution/airavata-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE
>
> Is that correct or incorrect?
Could well be correct; I've not checked the NOTICE files for the bundled code.
> I think the reason this comes up a lot is because most of us are software
> developers, not IP lawyers. My interpretation of the license howto is that
> you include the copyright info, since those bits are bundled in our binary
> distribution and their original NOTICE files are no longer present. Is that
> the incorrect way to interpret this:
>
> Copyright notifications which have been
> relocated<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers> from
> source files (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However,
> elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT
> licenses need <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59>
> not<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62> be
> duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their
> original locations.
Note the above.
> When I read the Apache 2.0, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause, and MIT licenses,
> they all state this:
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> Doesn't that mean that the copyright notice is required?
Yes, but "it suffices to leave those notices in their original locations."
Copyright notices have been *relocated* from source files have to go
into NOTICE.
The copyright notice in the license has not been relocated, so it is
still in the license text.
> Again, I'm an
> engineers, so I'm not sure how to interpret this language. I'm just trying
> to get a release out.
> Thanks,
> James
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required
>> anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the
>>> bundled
>>> > bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
>>> >
>>> > Would appreciate a review.
>>>
>>> What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread
>>> -- I
>>> have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually
>>> bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives.
>>>
>>> The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the
>>> complete
>>> text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it
>>> is
>>> not forbidden, either.
>>>
>>> The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices.
>>> Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and
>>> they
>>> should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for
>>> additional explanation:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a
>>>
>>> Because the file is named "NOTICE", people tend to think it's for
>>> anything
>>> notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back
>>> over and over like a weed...
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Marvin Humphrey
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Marvin -
The one example in that email thread (airavata), has a bunch of copyright
notices in there NOTICE file:
https://github.com/apache/airavata/blob/master/modules/distribution/airavata-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE
Is that correct or incorrect?
I think the reason this comes up a lot is because most of us are software
developers, not IP lawyers. My interpretation of the license howto is that
you include the copyright info, since those bits are bundled in our binary
distribution and their original NOTICE files are no longer present. Is that
the incorrect way to interpret this:
Copyright notifications which have been
relocated<http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers> from
source files (rather than removed) must be preserved in NOTICE. However,
elements such as the copyright notifications embedded within BSD and MIT
licenses need <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-59>
not<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-62> be
duplicated in NOTICE -- it suffices to leave those notices in their
original locations.
When I read the Apache 2.0, BSD 2-clause, BSD 3-clause, and MIT licenses,
they all state this:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Doesn't that mean that the copyright notice is required? Again, I'm an
engineers, so I'm not sure how to interpret this language. I'm just trying
to get a release out.
Thanks,
James
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:04 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>wrote:
> Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required
> anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the
>> bundled
>> > bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
>> >
>> > Would appreciate a review.
>>
>> What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread
>> -- I
>> have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually
>> bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives.
>>
>> The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the
>> complete
>> text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it
>> is
>> not forbidden, either.
>>
>> The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices.
>> Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and
>> they
>> should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for
>> additional explanation:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a
>>
>> Because the file is named "NOTICE", people tend to think it's for
>> anything
>> notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back
>> over and over like a weed...
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Marvin. So remove the copyrights from NOTICE. Are they required
anywhere then, as their not in the LICENSE file?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled
> > bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
> >
> > Would appreciate a review.
>
> What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread --
> I
> have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually
> bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives.
>
> The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the
> complete
> text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it
> is
> not forbidden, either.
>
> The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices.
> Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and they
> should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for
> additional explanation:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a
>
> Because the file is named "NOTICE", people tend to think it's for
> anything
> notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back
> over and over like a weed...
>
> Best,
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled
> bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
>
> Would appreciate a review.
What follows is a superficial review of what I see in this email thread -- I
have not checked the distribution to see whether or not bits are actually
bundled, nor have I checked the Phoenix mailing list archives.
The proposed LICENSE file looks OK. It is not necessary to embed the complete
text for MIT, 2-clause BSD and 3-clause BSD -- pointers suffice -- but it is
not forbidden, either.
The proposed NOTICE file contains a bunch of extraneous copyright notices.
Their presence in NOTICE constitutes a licensing documentation bug and they
should be removed. See the licensing how-to, as well as this mail for
additional explanation:
http://markmail.org/message/shez7ys3qnnewl4a
Because the file is named "NOTICE", people tend to think it's for anything
notice-ish. This is a pernicious misconception which keeps coming back
over and over like a weed...
Best,
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Sebb. I added the version info and the copyright to the LICENSE
file and based on feedback from Marvin removed the copyright info from our
NOTICE file. See this thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1JdgvRpJXBetp9xCgOfE7CEwvnaVcxeE%3D-q3mNMRQqC2vTA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:38 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 March 2014 19:59, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled
> > bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
> >
> > Would appreciate a review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
> >
> > ************************* NOTICE **************************
> >
> > Apache Phoenix (Incubating)
> > Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > This product includes software developed at
> > The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
> >
> > In addition, this product includes the following software:
>
> The following lines are almost certainly not necessary.
>
> > JLine (http://jline.sourceforge.net/),
> > Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mw...@cornell.edu>
> >
> > SQLLine (https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/),
> > Copyright (c) 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Marc Prud'hommeaux
> > Copyright (c) 2004-2010 The Eigenbase Project
> > Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Julian Hyde
> >
> > SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/),
> > Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch
> >
> > ANTLR (http://www.antlr.org/),
> > Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terrence Parr.
> >
> > Snappy (http://code.google.com/p/snappy/)
> > Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
> >
> > JAnsi (http://jansi.fusesource.org/)
> > Copyright (c) 2009-2013 FuseSource, Corp
> >
> > HawtJNI (http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/)
> > Copyright (C) 2009-2011 FuseSource Corp.
> >
> > Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org/)
> > Copyright (c) 2007- Tatu Saloranta, tatu.saloranta@iki.fi
> >
> > Protobuf (https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/)
> > Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
> >
> > Guava (http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/)
> > Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
> >
> >
> > ************************* LICENSE *************************
> >
> > The Apache License, Version 2.0, also applies to the following bundled
> > libraries:
>
> As already mentioned elsethread - and in the web-page - please quote
> the VERSIONS of the bundled software.
> Licenses may change between versions.
>
> > JAnsi, http://jansi.fusesource.org/
> > HawtJNI, http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/
> > Jackson, http://jackson.codehaus.org/
> > Guava, http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/
> >
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > BSD Clause 3/New BSD License, applies to the following bundled libraries:
>
> Again, VERSIONS are needed
>
> > Snappy, http://code.google.com/p/snappy/
> > Protobuf, https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/
> > SQLLine, https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/
> >
> > Full license included below:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > BSD Clause 3/New BSD License
> >
> > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
> met:
> > * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> > * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> > documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> distribution.
> > * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
> > names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote
> products
> > derived from this software without specific prior written
> permission.
> >
> > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
> IS"
> > AND
> > ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> > IMPLIED
> > WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> > DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
> > DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
> DAMAGES
> > (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
> SERVICES;
> > LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED
> AND
> > ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR
> TORT
> > (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
> > THIS
> > SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> >
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > BSD Clause 2 License, applies to the following bundled libraries:
> >
>
> Again, VERSIONS are needed
>
> > JLine, http://jline.sourceforge.net/
> > ANTLR, http://www.antlr.org/
> >
> > Full license included below:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > The BSD 2-Clause License
> >
> > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > modification,
> > are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> >
> > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
> > this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> > notice,
> > this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> > and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> >
> > THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS
> IS"
> > AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> > IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> PURPOSE
> > ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
> > LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> > CONSEQUENTIAL
> > DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
> OR
> > SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
> HOWEVER
> > CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> > LIABILITY,
> > OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
> > USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> >
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > MIT License, applies to the following bundled library:
> >
>
> Again, VERSIONS are needed
>
> > SLF4J, http://www.slf4j.org/
> >
> > Full license included below:
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > MIT license
> >
> > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> > the following conditions:
> >
> > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> >
> > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
> > LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
> > OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
> > WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 26 March 2014 19:59, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled
> bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
>
> Would appreciate a review.
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> ************************* NOTICE **************************
>
> Apache Phoenix (Incubating)
> Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> This product includes software developed at
> The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
>
> In addition, this product includes the following software:
The following lines are almost certainly not necessary.
> JLine (http://jline.sourceforge.net/),
> Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mw...@cornell.edu>
>
> SQLLine (https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/),
> Copyright (c) 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Marc Prud'hommeaux
> Copyright (c) 2004-2010 The Eigenbase Project
> Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Julian Hyde
>
> SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/),
> Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch
>
> ANTLR (http://www.antlr.org/),
> Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terrence Parr.
>
> Snappy (http://code.google.com/p/snappy/)
> Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
>
> JAnsi (http://jansi.fusesource.org/)
> Copyright (c) 2009-2013 FuseSource, Corp
>
> HawtJNI (http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/)
> Copyright (C) 2009-2011 FuseSource Corp.
>
> Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org/)
> Copyright (c) 2007- Tatu Saloranta, tatu.saloranta@iki.fi
>
> Protobuf (https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/)
> Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
>
> Guava (http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/)
> Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
>
>
> ************************* LICENSE *************************
>
> The Apache License, Version 2.0, also applies to the following bundled
> libraries:
As already mentioned elsethread - and in the web-page - please quote
the VERSIONS of the bundled software.
Licenses may change between versions.
> JAnsi, http://jansi.fusesource.org/
> HawtJNI, http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/
> Jackson, http://jackson.codehaus.org/
> Guava, http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/
>
> ======================================================================
>
> BSD Clause 3/New BSD License, applies to the following bundled libraries:
Again, VERSIONS are needed
> Snappy, http://code.google.com/p/snappy/
> Protobuf, https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/
> SQLLine, https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/
>
> Full license included below:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> BSD Clause 3/New BSD License
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> * Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
> names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
> derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
> AND
> ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> IMPLIED
> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
> DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
> THIS
> SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> ======================================================================
>
> BSD Clause 2 License, applies to the following bundled libraries:
>
Again, VERSIONS are needed
> JLine, http://jline.sourceforge.net/
> ANTLR, http://www.antlr.org/
>
> Full license included below:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The BSD 2-Clause License
>
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> modification,
> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice,
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
> AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL
> DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
> SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
> CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
> LIABILITY,
> OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
> USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> ======================================================================
>
> MIT License, applies to the following bundled library:
>
Again, VERSIONS are needed
> SLF4J, http://www.slf4j.org/
>
> Full license included below:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MIT license
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> the following conditions:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
> OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
> WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Below is our updated NOTICE (which includes the copyright for the bundled
bits) and LICENSE (minus the standard Apache 2.0 part).
Would appreciate a review.
Thanks,
James
************************* NOTICE **************************
Apache Phoenix (Incubating)
Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
In addition, this product includes the following software:
JLine (http://jline.sourceforge.net/),
Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mw...@cornell.edu>
SQLLine (https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/),
Copyright (c) 2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007 Marc Prud'hommeaux
Copyright (c) 2004-2010 The Eigenbase Project
Copyright (c) 2013-2014 Julian Hyde
SLF4J (http://www.slf4j.org/),
Copyright (c) 2004-2008 QOS.ch
ANTLR (http://www.antlr.org/),
Copyright (c) 2003-2008, Terrence Parr.
Snappy (http://code.google.com/p/snappy/)
Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
JAnsi (http://jansi.fusesource.org/)
Copyright (c) 2009-2013 FuseSource, Corp
HawtJNI (http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/)
Copyright (C) 2009-2011 FuseSource Corp.
Jackson (http://jackson.codehaus.org/)
Copyright (c) 2007- Tatu Saloranta, tatu.saloranta@iki.fi
Protobuf (https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/)
Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
Guava (http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/)
Copyright 2008 Google Inc.
************************* LICENSE *************************
The Apache License, Version 2.0, also applies to the following bundled
libraries:
JAnsi, http://jansi.fusesource.org/
HawtJNI, http://fusesource.com/forge/sites/hawtjni/
Jackson, http://jackson.codehaus.org/
Guava, http://code.google.com/p/guava-libraries/
======================================================================
BSD Clause 3/New BSD License, applies to the following bundled libraries:
Snappy, http://code.google.com/p/snappy/
Protobuf, https://code.google.com/p/protobuf/
SQLLine, https://github.com/julianhyde/sqlline/
Full license included below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BSD Clause 3/New BSD License
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <organization> nor the
names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
======================================================================
BSD Clause 2 License, applies to the following bundled libraries:
JLine, http://jline.sourceforge.net/
ANTLR, http://www.antlr.org/
Full license included below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The BSD 2-Clause License
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER
CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
LIABILITY,
OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE
USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
======================================================================
MIT License, applies to the following bundled library:
SLF4J, http://www.slf4j.org/
Full license included below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MIT license
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Thanks for all the feedback. We'll spin up another RC shortly for our 3.0
and 4.0 release with the corrections to our NOTICE and LICENSE files, along
with ensuring that our source release matches the source bundle exactly.
One question: given that we'll indicate the bundled products and their
licenses in our LICENSE file, where does the copyright info go? If I
understand this section:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice, then we should
still include the copyrights in our NOTICE file, since our binary
distribution does not have the original NOTICE for the bundled binary jars.
Thanks,
James
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There are several files missing license headers - is this a concern?
> ./dev/phoenix.importorder
> ./examples/STOCK_SYMBOL.csv
> ./examples/WEB_STAT.csv
> ./examples/pig/test.pig
> ./examples/pig/testdata
> ./phoenix-core/src/main/resources/java.sql.Driver
>
> (ignoring CHANGES and rat.txt files)
>
> Some very minor issues that you may want to fix/change:
> - build.txt has "copyright 2010" in it
> - build.text should probably be called BUILDING
> - there's no .zip package - not require but convenient for users
> - source package name doesn't include "apache", not required you may want
> to consider adding this for trademark protection
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
There are several files missing license headers - is this a concern?
./dev/phoenix.importorder
./examples/STOCK_SYMBOL.csv
./examples/WEB_STAT.csv
./examples/pig/test.pig
./examples/pig/testdata
./phoenix-core/src/main/resources/java.sql.Driver
(ignoring CHANGES and rat.txt files)
Some very minor issues that you may want to fix/change:
- build.txt has "copyright 2010" in it
- build.text should probably be called BUILDING
- there's no .zip package - not require but convenient for users
- source package name doesn't include "apache", not required you may want to consider adding this for trademark protection
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Andrew Phillips <de...@yahoo.co.uk>.
This probably belongs in a [DISCUSS] more than in a [VOTE] thread, but in response to Andrew's comment:
> Can we add a "Releasing" page
> to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that
> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix
> release.
...I was wondering if this might be useful: https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/Releasing%20jclouds. I recall it took us a couple of RCs to fine-tune, too.
ap
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Our binary distribution bundles sqlline which has a BSD Clause 3 license.
We've included this license with the Apache 2 license in our LICENSE file.
Do we need to include sqlline in the NOTICE file?
Yes, we bundle ANTLR in our binary distribution. Most of the other items
are pulled in based on the transitive dependencies of other jars we've
bundled in our binary distribution. That's why we included them in the
NOTICE file. Is this correct?
Our LICENSE file includes the licenses of all bundled software - either
Apache 2 or BSD Clause 3.
Please advise, as we're trying to follow the guidelines listed here[1].
Thanks,
James
[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:48 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending
> > your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
> > 1) In the binary bundle:
> > a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file
> > in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
>
> It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in
> the NOTICE file.
> Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct.
>
> > b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
> > c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are
> bundled
> > with our binary distribution.
>
> Are you sure?
> Even JUnit and ANTLR?
>
> Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry
> is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry.
>
> > 2) In the source bundle:
> > a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src
> > bundle
>
> Yes.
>
> > b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
> > reflected in git:
> > - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website
> so
> > should not be included in our git repo)
>
> OK
>
> > - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
>
> Not OK.
>
> > - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked
> > into git.
>
> The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag.
>
> The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source
> bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are
> allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git
> (or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and
> difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license.
>
> > - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead
> a
> > README file is included instead.
>
> The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation
> should be included.
>
> > For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to
> > git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
>
> Not sure what you are proposing.
>
> The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle
> agrees with the tag.
> Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the
> contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released
> under the Apache License.
>
> > Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle?
> > Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would
> we
> > need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
>
> See above.
>
> > FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next
> > release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
>
> > Thanks,
> > James
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
> >>
> >> Can we add a "Releasing" page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/that
> >> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We
> can
> >> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This
> >> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your
> process
> >> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA,
> saving
> >> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating
> binary
> >> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the
> >> tarballs, etc.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
> >> > >
> >> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this
> >> > require
> >> > > a new RC?
> >> >
> >> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging
> error.
> >> >
> >> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary
> NOTICE
> >> > file.
> >> >
> >> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
> >> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
> >> > that regard.
> >> >
> >> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to
> >> > the source code control system.
> >> >
> >> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >> [...]
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be
> >> found
> >> > >> at:
> >> > >> >> >
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle,
> and
> >> no
> >> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > Where are those?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> In the source bundle.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > $ wget
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> >> > >>
> >> > >> That's the binary bundle.
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> - Andy
> >>
> >> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> >> (via Tom White)
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 22:27, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending
> your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
> 1) In the binary bundle:
> a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file
> in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
It's not clear to me that the SQLLine attribution should even be in
the NOTICE file.
Though of course if it must be included, the URL should be correct.
> b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
> c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled
> with our binary distribution.
Are you sure?
Even JUnit and ANTLR?
Even if they are included, that only means that a LICENSE file entry
is needed, not necessarily a NOTICE entry.
> 2) In the source bundle:
> a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src
> bundle
Yes.
> b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
> reflected in git:
> - the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so
> should not be included in our git repo)
OK
> - the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
Not OK.
> - the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked
> into git.
The source bundle must only contain files contained in the Git tag.
The point is that the only practical way to ensure that the source
bundle contains only files that have the appropriate license and are
allowed to be included in a release is to compare the files with Git
(or SVN). Otherwise it's impossible to establish provenance and
difficult to determine if the file has a suitable license.
> - the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a
> README file is included instead.
The ASF releases source, so source files to create documentation
should be included.
> For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to
> git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
Not sure what you are proposing.
The RC reviewers need to be able to check that the source bundle
agrees with the tag.
Also that the NOTICE and LICENSE files in the bundles agree with the
contents of those bundles and that any bundled code can be released
under the Apache License.
> Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle?
> Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we
> need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
See above.
> FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next
> release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
> Thanks,
> James
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
>>
>> Can we add a "Releasing" page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that
>> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can
>> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This
>> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process
>> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving
>> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary
>> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the
>> tarballs, etc.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
>> > >
>> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this
>> > require
>> > > a new RC?
>> >
>> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error.
>> >
>> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE
>> > file.
>> >
>> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
>> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
>> > that regard.
>> >
>> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to
>> > the source code control system.
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >> [...]
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be
>> found
>> > >> at:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and
>> no
>> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Where are those?
>> > >>
>> > >> In the source bundle.
>> > >>
>> > >> > $ wget
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> > >>
>> > >> That's the binary bundle.
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> - Andy
>>
>> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> (via Tom White)
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the detailed review, Sebb. We really appreciate you spending
your time going through this. Here's the list of TODOs for us:
1) In the binary bundle:
a) Fix the copy/paste error for the URL to SQLLine in the NOTICE file
in the binary bundle as noted by Gabriel here[1].
b) Change "developed by" to "developed at" in the NOTICE file
c) In answer to your question, yes all those projects listed are bundled
with our binary distribution.
2) In the source bundle:
a) The target dir and rat.txt files should be removed from the src
bundle
b) There were the following changes made to the src bundle not
reflected in git:
- the docs/phoenix.csv file was removed (it's part of our website so
should not be included in our git repo)
- the build.txt file was modified slightly in the src bundle.
- the CHANGES file is bundled with the src bundle, but not checked
into git.
- the README.md file is not included in the src bundle, but instead a
README file is included instead.
For the source binary changes, we could commit and push those changes to
git and update our 3.0.0 tag. Would that be an acceptable solution?
Are there more changes necessary to the NOTICE file in the binary bundle?
Would it be acceptable to fix the URL in the next release? If not, would we
need to go through a dev vote again for the NOTICE file change?
FWIW, we'll automate the generation of our release bundles for our next
release (and make sure the source matches exactly as well).
Thanks,
James
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAA5C_puNoy74jniWMTbx%3DZFyc1itf0w6E4kCHvCOTK_OTfBgmg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
>
> Can we add a "Releasing" page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that
> includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can
> fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This
> could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process
> for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving
> off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary
> release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the
> tarballs, etc.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
> > >
> > > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this
> > require
> > > a new RC?
> >
> > If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error.
> >
> > But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE
> > file.
> >
> > And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
> > with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
> > that regard.
> >
> > It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to
> > the source code control system.
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >> >> [...]
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be
> found
> > >> at:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and
> no
> > >> >> Rat.txt files.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Where are those?
> > >>
> > >> In the source bundle.
> > >>
> > >> > $ wget
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> > >>
> > >> That's the binary bundle.
> >
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
James, Mujtaba, et. al.,
Can we add a "Releasing" page to http://phoenix.incubator.apache.org/ that
includes step by step instructions for packaging a Phoenix release. We can
fine tune this process according to feedback received during RCs. This
could/should include shell commands captured one time through your process
for generating a source tarball from a Git checkout at an exact SHA, saving
off a clean source tarball before running release checks, generating binary
release tarballs, calculating checksums over the tarballs, signing the
tarballs, etc.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
> >
> > Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this
> require
> > a new RC?
>
> If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error.
>
> But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE
> file.
>
> And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
> with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
> that regard.
>
> It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to
> the source code control system.
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found
> >> at:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> >> >>
> >> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
> >> >>
> >> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and no
> >> >> Rat.txt files.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Where are those?
> >>
> >> In the source bundle.
> >>
> >> > $ wget
> >> >
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> >>
> >> That's the binary bundle.
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 22:01, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
>
> Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require
> a new RC?
If I were the RM I would respin the RC for this sort of packaging error.
But in this case there are other more serious errors, the binary NOTICE file.
And most important, please establish why the Git tag does not agree
with the source archive, otherwise the new RC may also be faulty in
that regard.
It's vital that all files in the source bundle can be traced back to
the source code control system.
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found
>> at:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>> >>
>> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>> >>
>> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and no
>> >> Rat.txt files.
>> >
>> >
>> > Where are those?
>>
>> In the source bundle.
>>
>> > $ wget
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>>
>> That's the binary bundle.
>>
>> > $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> > $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating
>> > $ find . -name target
>> > (no results)
>> > $ find . -name '*.txt'
>> > ./bin/readme.txt
>> > $ cd ..
>> > $ wget
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
>> > $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
>> > [...]
>> > fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
>> > *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> > $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> > fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
>> > phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > - Andy
>> >
>> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
>> > (via Tom White)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
Pardon, got -bin and -src crossed mentally, indeed they are there.
Looks like src was packaged after running the RAT check. Does this require
a new RC?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found
> at:
> >> >
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> >>
> >> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
> >>
> >> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and no
> >> Rat.txt files.
> >
> >
> > Where are those?
>
> In the source bundle.
>
> > $ wget
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>
> That's the binary bundle.
>
> > $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> > $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating
> > $ find . -name target
> > (no results)
> > $ find . -name '*.txt'
> > ./bin/readme.txt
> > $ cd ..
> > $ wget
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
> > $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
> > [...]
> > fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
> > *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> > $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> > fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
> > phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 21:56, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>>
>> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>>
>> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and no
>> Rat.txt files.
>
>
> Where are those?
In the source bundle.
> $ wget
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
That's the binary bundle.
> $ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> $ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating
> $ find . -name target
> (no results)
> $ find . -name '*.txt'
> ./bin/readme.txt
> $ cd ..
> $ wget
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
> $ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
> [...]
> fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
> *phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> $ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
> fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
> phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> [...]
>
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>
> The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
>
> There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and no
> Rat.txt files.
Where are those?
$ wget
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
$ tar xzf phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
$ cd phoenix-3.0.0-incubating
$ find . -name target
(no results)
$ find . -name '*.txt'
./bin/readme.txt
$ cd ..
$ wget
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
$ cat phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz.sha
[...]
fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
*phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
$ sha256sum phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
fee73e23cf055fd5a5836f40be87cf9975927509583fb3f067bcead2815dd3b8
phoenix-3.0.0-incubating.tar.gz
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 16:39, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix
> is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed
> as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This
> is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of
> Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release
> includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release.
>
> New features include:
> - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join
> - Shared tables over same physical HBase table
> - Read-only and updatable views
> - Multi-tenancy
> - JDBC ARRAY type
> - Sequence creation and usage
>
> The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be
> found at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
The source bundle includes directories and files not in Git.
There should be no "target" directories in the source bundle, and no
Rat.txt files.
> The binary artifacts can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/
The binary NOTICE file appears to include unnecessary items.
Please see:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.)
Does the binary bundle actually include the bits from
SQLline/SLF4J/ANTLR/JUnit ?
If not, they must NOT be in the NOTICE file.
If so, then the license files must be included in - or locally linked
from - the LICENSE file
It _may_ be necessary to mention some of them in the NOTICE file -
this depends on the exact license conditions.
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
>
> KEYS file available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
The canonical location should be shown as
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
since that is where the download page should link the KEYS file from.
[Not a blocker for the release contents per se, but please fix before
announcing the release]
> The tag to be voted upon:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
I could not work out how to download a tarball/zip of this specific
tag used to create the source release.
I tried starting at the git url above.
I then clicked on the object hash, and clicked on snapshot on the
resulting page.
However the resulting download had some differences from the source
bundle, so either the tag or the source bundle has been modified.
Also, are Git tags immutable, or can they be deleted/replaced?
If not immutable, please provide an immutable attribute such as the tag hash.
It's important to be able to tie the source code to the source code
control system (SCCS), since the SCCS contents are what has been
validated by the PPMC.
> For information about the contents of this release see:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
>
> Release notes
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145&styleName=Text&projectId=12315120&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Thanks,
> James
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 18:56, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What do you mean? That was Phoenix's file I was linking to.
I realise that the file is in the Phoenix Git and is called NOTICE.
However it is not a valid NOTICE file according to:
[0] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.)
The header is wrong.
The second paragraph should be "developed at" not "developed by".
etc - please read the page mentioned above [0]
The file at [1] does not appear to be the same as the NOTICE file in the tag [2]
which contains the following contents that looks fine (assuming there
are no 3rd party source files that need attribution in the NOTICE
file)
>>>>
Apache Phoenix (Incubating)
Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation
This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
<<<<
The source archive that is the subject of this vote has the same contents.
As such, replacing its NOTICE with [1] would be a mistake.
The proposed NOTICE does not look correct for the binary bundle
either, as explained elsethread (and in [0])
[2] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=commit;h=025a07c64d8f4a68d1c13b3022fe7375bbacfbb4
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 March 2014 18:11, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Can you update your notice file? [1]
>>
>> Please don't; that does not look like a correct NOTICE file.
>>
>> See
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.)
>>
>>
>> > - John
>> >
>> > [1]:
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
What do you mean? That was Phoenix's file I was linking to.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM, sebb <se...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2014 18:11, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you update your notice file? [1]
>
> Please don't; that does not look like a correct NOTICE file.
>
> See
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.)
>
>
> > - John
> >
> > [1]:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> +1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> > This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1.
> Phoenix
> >> > is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is
> >> accessed
> >> > as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using
> >> SQL. This
> >> > is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch
> of
> >> > Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The
> release
> >> > includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release.
> >> >
> >> > New features include:
> >> > - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join
> >> > - Shared tables over same physical HBase table
> >> > - Read-only and updatable views
> >> > - Multi-tenancy
> >> > - JDBC ARRAY type
> >> > - Sequence creation and usage
> >> >
> >> > The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes)
> can
> >> be
> >> > found at:
> >> >
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >> >
> >> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found
> at:
> >> >
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> >> >
> >> > The binary artifacts can be found at:
> >> >
> >>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/
> >> >
> >> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> >> > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
> >> >
> >> > KEYS file available here:
> >> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
> >> >
> >> > The tag to be voted upon:
> >> >
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
> >> >
> >> > For information about the contents of this release see:
> >> >
> >>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
> >> >
> >> > Release notes
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145&styleName=Text&projectId=12315120&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin
> >> >
> >> > Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
> >> >
> >> > [ ] +1 approve
> >> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > James
> >>
> >> --
> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> >> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity to
> >> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> >> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the
> reader
> >> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that
> >> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> >> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> >> received this communication in error, please contact the sender
> immediately
> >> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 25 March 2014 18:11, John D. Ament <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you update your notice file? [1]
Please don't; that does not look like a correct NOTICE file.
See
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#simple (et seq.)
> - John
>
> [1]:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
>
>> +1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi everyone,
>> > This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix
>> > is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is
>> accessed
>> > as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using
>> SQL. This
>> > is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of
>> > Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release
>> > includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release.
>> >
>> > New features include:
>> > - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join
>> > - Shared tables over same physical HBase table
>> > - Read-only and updatable views
>> > - Multi-tenancy
>> > - JDBC ARRAY type
>> > - Sequence creation and usage
>> >
>> > The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can
>> be
>> > found at:
>> >
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>> >
>> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>> >
>> > The binary artifacts can be found at:
>> >
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/
>> >
>> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>> > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
>> >
>> > KEYS file available here:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
>> >
>> > The tag to be voted upon:
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
>> >
>> > For information about the contents of this release see:
>> >
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
>> >
>> > Release notes
>> >
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145&styleName=Text&projectId=12315120&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin
>> >
>> > Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 approve
>> > [ ] +0 no opinion
>> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > James
>>
>> --
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
>> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
>> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
>> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
>> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
>> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
>> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
>> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
>> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
Can you update your notice file? [1]
- John
[1]:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=blob;f=NOTICE;h=08364793ad096649eb24b3d582b2307376b25863;hb=HEAD
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com> wrote:
> +1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests.
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix
> > is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is
> accessed
> > as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using
> SQL. This
> > is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of
> > Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release
> > includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release.
> >
> > New features include:
> > - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join
> > - Shared tables over same physical HBase table
> > - Read-only and updatable views
> > - Multi-tenancy
> > - JDBC ARRAY type
> > - Sequence creation and usage
> >
> > The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can
> be
> > found at:
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
> >
> > The binary artifacts can be found at:
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
> >
> > KEYS file available here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
> >
> > The tag to be voted upon:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
> >
> > For information about the contents of this release see:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
> >
> > Release notes
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145&styleName=Text&projectId=12315120&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin
> >
> > Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
> >
> > [ ] +1 approve
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > James
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
> privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
> of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
> any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
> forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete it from your system. Thank You.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release of Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1
Posted by Devaraj Das <dd...@hortonworks.com>.
+1. Downloaded the source, built the package and ran unit tests.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:39 AM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> This is a call for a vote on Apache Phoenix 3.0.0 incubating RC1. Phoenix
> is a SQL query engine for Apache HBase, a NoSQL data store. It is accessed
> as a JDBC driver and enables querying and managing HBase tables using SQL. This
> is the next major release of Phoenix compatible with the 0.94 branch of
> Apache HBase and will be our second release in the incubator. The release
> includes both a source-only release and a convenience binary release.
>
> New features include:
> - Equi-joins through broadcast hash join
> - Shared tables over same physical HBase table
> - Read-only and updatable views
> - Multi-tenancy
> - JDBC ARRAY type
> - Sequence creation and usage
>
> The dev list thread for the passing vote (10 +1s with 3 IPMC votes) can be
> found at:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-phoenix-dev/201403.mbox/%3CCAAF1Jdg4x1Fo6xtX%3DEzWiGrQsxLkgGUJTAm7Dcb-M8NTR9MJgw%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/src/
>
> The binary artifacts can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/phoenix-3.0.0-incubating-rc1/bin/
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/mujtaba.asc
>
> KEYS file available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/phoenix/KEYS
>
> The tag to be voted upon:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=tag;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
>
> For information about the contents of this release see:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-phoenix.git;a=log;h=refs/tags/v3.0.0-incubating-rc1
>
> Release notes
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12326145&styleName=Text&projectId=12315120&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C34a706e780c7e8f198c9ca903e80572b560599b6%7Clin
>
> Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. Please vote:
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Thanks,
> James
--
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
NOTICE: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential,
privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any printing, copying, dissemination, distribution, disclosure or
forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately
and delete it from your system. Thank You.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org