You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> on 2015/03/06 09:18:54 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
The following changes have been made:
- The RAT issues found before were fixed.
- Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
they?)
Please start voting.
+1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Aha, that fixed the issue.
I was able to run two nodes grid and nodes discovered each other and
everything seems to be fine. However, this produced the error:
% ./bin/ignitevisorcmd.sh
Error: Could not find or load main class org.apache.ignite.visor.commands.VisorConsole
I think it worth adding a DEVNOTES.txt or a similar to the root folder, so a
total n00b developer can quickly get it up and running from the source code
without looking elsewhere.
Cos
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:27AM, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
> This happens because build tries to call Git to acquire revision number.
> This is needed only for release procedure and can be disabled by excluding
> 'release' profile:
>
> mvn clean compile -P-release
>
> --
> Val
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Cos.
> >
> > As far as MD5, I used the command documented in Apache guidelines:
> > gpg --print-md MD5 [fileName] > [fileName].md5
> >
> > The build issue you are having looks rather strange. Is anyone else having
> > the same? In any case, I will try it myself tomorrow and update the RC if
> > necessary.
> >
> > D.
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > A feeedback:
> > > - the signature is correct.
> > > - md5sum is correct, although I am not sure how you manage to get such
> > a
> > > format. Standard Unix md5sum returns
> > >
> > > 6ea5594bd5967d6f38e7009fc7783e11 incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2.zip
> > >
> > > whereas your file has whitespaces and capital letters. Is it Apple's
> > thing
> > > or
> > > something? Can it made to be complient with Unix's format?
> > >
> > > - unfortunately, I can not build nor compile not validate the licenses
> > > because I am getting
> > >
> > > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> > > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.7:run
> > > (properties-augmentation)
> > > on project ignite-core: An Ant BuildException has occured: exec returned:
> > > 128
> > > [ERROR] around Ant part ...<exec outputproperty="ignite.build"
> > > executable="git" failonerror="yes">... @ 4:74 in
> > >
> > >
> > /biggy/workspaces/ignite-RC12/incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2/modules/core/target/antrun/build-main.xml
> > > [ERROR] -> [Help 1]
> > >
> > > Not really sure if this an environment issue or else, but my laptop is a
> > > development machine and I usually have no issues with anything in Java
> > > stack.
> > >
> > > Please advise.
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 12:18AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > > >
> > > > The following changes have been made:
> > > >
> > > > - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > > > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> > > docs/wiki
> > > > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> > > should
> > > > they?)
> > > >
> > > > Please start voting.
> > > >
> > > > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > > > 0 - don't care either way
> > > > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
> > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Valentin Kulichenko <va...@gmail.com>.
This happens because build tries to call Git to acquire revision number.
This is needed only for release procedure and can be disabled by excluding
'release' profile:
mvn clean compile -P-release
--
Val
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Thanks Cos.
>
> As far as MD5, I used the command documented in Apache guidelines:
> gpg --print-md MD5 [fileName] > [fileName].md5
>
> The build issue you are having looks rather strange. Is anyone else having
> the same? In any case, I will try it myself tomorrow and update the RC if
> necessary.
>
> D.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > A feeedback:
> > - the signature is correct.
> > - md5sum is correct, although I am not sure how you manage to get such
> a
> > format. Standard Unix md5sum returns
> >
> > 6ea5594bd5967d6f38e7009fc7783e11 incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2.zip
> >
> > whereas your file has whitespaces and capital letters. Is it Apple's
> thing
> > or
> > something? Can it made to be complient with Unix's format?
> >
> > - unfortunately, I can not build nor compile not validate the licenses
> > because I am getting
> >
> > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.7:run
> > (properties-augmentation)
> > on project ignite-core: An Ant BuildException has occured: exec returned:
> > 128
> > [ERROR] around Ant part ...<exec outputproperty="ignite.build"
> > executable="git" failonerror="yes">... @ 4:74 in
> >
> >
> /biggy/workspaces/ignite-RC12/incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2/modules/core/target/antrun/build-main.xml
> > [ERROR] -> [Help 1]
> >
> > Not really sure if this an environment issue or else, but my laptop is a
> > development machine and I usually have no issues with anything in Java
> > stack.
> >
> > Please advise.
> > Cos
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 12:18AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > >
> > > The following changes have been made:
> > >
> > > - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> > docs/wiki
> > > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> > should
> > > they?)
> > >
> > > Please start voting.
> > >
> > > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > > 0 - don't care either way
> > > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 09.03.2015 08:37, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Thanks Cos.
>
> As far as MD5, I used the command documented in Apache guidelines:
> gpg --print-md MD5 [fileName] > [fileName].md5
"For example," if I remember correctly; IMO it's a fairly bad example; I
don't know of any standard tool that verifies that format.
I'd also consider using a SHA1 or better hash instead of MD5, which is
known to be fairly easily crackable these days.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Thanks Cos.
As far as MD5, I used the command documented in Apache guidelines:
gpg --print-md MD5 [fileName] > [fileName].md5
The build issue you are having looks rather strange. Is anyone else having
the same? In any case, I will try it myself tomorrow and update the RC if
necessary.
D.
On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> A feeedback:
> - the signature is correct.
> - md5sum is correct, although I am not sure how you manage to get such a
> format. Standard Unix md5sum returns
>
> 6ea5594bd5967d6f38e7009fc7783e11 incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2.zip
>
> whereas your file has whitespaces and capital letters. Is it Apple's thing
> or
> something? Can it made to be complient with Unix's format?
>
> - unfortunately, I can not build nor compile not validate the licenses
> because I am getting
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.7:run
> (properties-augmentation)
> on project ignite-core: An Ant BuildException has occured: exec returned:
> 128
> [ERROR] around Ant part ...<exec outputproperty="ignite.build"
> executable="git" failonerror="yes">... @ 4:74 in
>
> /biggy/workspaces/ignite-RC12/incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2/modules/core/target/antrun/build-main.xml
> [ERROR] -> [Help 1]
>
> Not really sure if this an environment issue or else, but my laptop is a
> development machine and I usually have no issues with anything in Java
> stack.
>
> Please advise.
> Cos
>
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 12:18AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> >
> > The following changes have been made:
> >
> > - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> docs/wiki
> > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> should
> > they?)
> >
> > Please start voting.
> >
> > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > 0 - don't care either way
> > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
A feeedback:
- the signature is correct.
- md5sum is correct, although I am not sure how you manage to get such a
format. Standard Unix md5sum returns
6ea5594bd5967d6f38e7009fc7783e11 incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2.zip
whereas your file has whitespaces and capital letters. Is it Apple's thing or
something? Can it made to be complient with Unix's format?
- unfortunately, I can not build nor compile not validate the licenses
because I am getting
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.7:run (properties-augmentation)
on project ignite-core: An Ant BuildException has occured: exec returned: 128
[ERROR] around Ant part ...<exec outputproperty="ignite.build"
executable="git" failonerror="yes">... @ 4:74 in
/biggy/workspaces/ignite-RC12/incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2/modules/core/target/antrun/build-main.xml
[ERROR] -> [Help 1]
Not really sure if this an environment issue or else, but my laptop is a
development machine and I usually have no issues with anything in Java stack.
Please advise.
Cos
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 12:18AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>
> The following changes have been made:
>
> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> they?)
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 09.03.2015 23:45, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> According to the guidelines, NOTICE file cannot be used for the disclaimer,
> but README or RELEASE_NOTES are OK.
>
> We now will have:
>
> - LICENCE.txt
> - README.txt
> - NOTICE.txt
> - RELEASE_NOTES.txt
>
> I have added the disclaimer into RELEASE_NOTES, as adding another file
> already seems prolific to me.
$ find incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2 -type d | wc -l
1131
$ find incubator-ignite-release-1.0.0-RC2 -type f | wc -l
4701
Yes, it would be really bad if that second number changed to 4702. :)
-- Brane
> Henry, thanks for pointing this out!
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's keep it in separate file. Make it easier to spot and remove when
>> we graduate.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>> Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
>>>> ignorance...
>>> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>>
>>>
>>> A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
>>> I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
>>>>> Signature file looks good
>>>>> Checksum file looks good
>>>>> NOTICE file looks good
>>>>> LICENSE file looks good
>>>>>
>>>>> But -1 due to:
>>>>>
>>>>> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
>>>>> example.
>>>>> We need this as part of Apache incubating
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Henry
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The following changes have been made:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
>>>>>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
>> docs/wiki
>>>>>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
>> should
>>>>>> they?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please start voting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
>>>>>> 0 - don't care either way
>>>>>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain
>> why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Lets keep a DISCLAIMER file separately.
It is easier to track and already norm for incubating project to have that file.
RELEASE_NOTES.txt should be use per-release, but DISCLAIMER will stay
for the lifetime of Ignite in the incubating.
- Henry
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> According to the guidelines, NOTICE file cannot be used for the disclaimer,
> but README or RELEASE_NOTES are OK.
>
> We now will have:
>
> - LICENCE.txt
> - README.txt
> - NOTICE.txt
> - RELEASE_NOTES.txt
>
> I have added the disclaimer into RELEASE_NOTES, as adding another file
> already seems prolific to me.
>
> Henry, thanks for pointing this out!
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Let's keep it in separate file. Make it easier to spot and remove when
>> we graduate.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> >> Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
>> >> ignorance...
>> >
>> > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>> >
>> >
>> > A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
>> > I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
>> >
>> > -- Brane
>> >
>> >> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
>> >>> Signature file looks good
>> >>> Checksum file looks good
>> >>> NOTICE file looks good
>> >>> LICENSE file looks good
>> >>>
>> >>> But -1 due to:
>> >>>
>> >>> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
>> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
>> >>> example.
>> >>> We need this as part of Apache incubating
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> - Henry
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> >>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
>> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The following changes have been made:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
>> >>>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
>> docs/wiki
>> >>>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
>> should
>> >>>> they?)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please start voting.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
>> >>>> 0 - don't care either way
>> >>>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain
>> why)
>> >
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
According to the guidelines, NOTICE file cannot be used for the disclaimer,
but README or RELEASE_NOTES are OK.
We now will have:
- LICENCE.txt
- README.txt
- NOTICE.txt
- RELEASE_NOTES.txt
I have added the disclaimer into RELEASE_NOTES, as adding another file
already seems prolific to me.
Henry, thanks for pointing this out!
D.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Let's keep it in separate file. Make it easier to spot and remove when
> we graduate.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> >> Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
> >> ignorance...
> >
> > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> >
> >
> > A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
> > I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> >>> Signature file looks good
> >>> Checksum file looks good
> >>> NOTICE file looks good
> >>> LICENSE file looks good
> >>>
> >>> But -1 due to:
> >>>
> >>> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
> >>> example.
> >>> We need this as part of Apache incubating
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Henry
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> >>>>
> >>>> The following changes have been made:
> >>>>
> >>>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> >>>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> docs/wiki
> >>>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> should
> >>>> they?)
> >>>>
> >>>> Please start voting.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> >>>> 0 - don't care either way
> >>>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain
> why)
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Let's keep it in separate file. Make it easier to spot and remove when
we graduate.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
>> ignorance...
>
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
>
> A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
> I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
>
> -- Brane
>
>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
>>> Signature file looks good
>>> Checksum file looks good
>>> NOTICE file looks good
>>> LICENSE file looks good
>>>
>>> But -1 due to:
>>>
>>> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
>>> example.
>>> We need this as part of Apache incubating
>>>
>>>
>>> - Henry
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>>>>
>>>> The following changes have been made:
>>>>
>>>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
>>>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
>>>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
>>>> they?)
>>>>
>>>> Please start voting.
>>>>
>>>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
>>>> 0 - don't care either way
>>>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
LICENSE and NOTICE (and DISCLAIMER if it's a seprate file) must be at
the root of the released source tree. You can put readmes, release
notes, etc. wherever you like.
Note that we typically don't use a .txt extension on LICENSE and NOTICE,
but I don't think that's a hard requirement.
By the way, I found that the following, apparently text files, have the
'executable' bit set when unzipped on Unix:
./LICENSE.txt
./NOTICE.txt
./docs/release_notes.md
./docs/wiki/basic-concepts/async-support.md
./docs/wiki/basic-concepts/getting-started.md
./docs/wiki/basic-concepts/ignite-life-cycel.md
./docs/wiki/basic-concepts/maven-setup.md
./docs/wiki/basic-concepts/what-is-ignite.md
./docs/wiki/basic-concepts/zero-deployment.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/aws-config.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/cluster-config.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/cluster-groups.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/cluster.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/leader-election.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/network-config.md
./docs/wiki/clustering/node-local-map.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/checkpointing.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/collocate-compute-and-data.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/compute-grid.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/compute-tasks.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/distributed-closures.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/executor-service.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/fault-tolerance.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/job-scheduling.md
./docs/wiki/compute-grid/load-balancing.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/affinity-collocation.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/automatic-db-integration.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/cache-modes.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/cache-queries.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/data-grid.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/data-loading.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/evictions.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/hibernate-l2-cache.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/jcache.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/off-heap-memory.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/persistent-store.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/rebalancing.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/transactions.md
./docs/wiki/data-grid/web-session-clustering.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-data-structures/atomic-types.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-data-structures/countdownlatch.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-data-structures/id-generator.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-data-structures/queue-and-set.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-events/automatic-batching.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-events/events.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-file-system/igfs.md
./docs/wiki/distributed-messaging/messaging.md
./docs/wiki/http/configuration.md
./docs/wiki/http/rest-api.md
./docs/wiki/release-notes/release-notes.md
./docs/wiki/service-grid/cluster-singletons.md
./docs/wiki/service-grid/service-configuration.md
./docs/wiki/service-grid/service-example.md
./docs/wiki/service-grid/service-grid.md
./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/apache-2.0.txt
That's not really wrong, but it is strange.
-- Brane
On 09.03.2015 22:50, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Sorry, I asked my questions incorrectly. Ignite now has README.txt,
> NOTICE.TXT, LICENSE.TXT, and RELEASE_NOTES.txt. Is it OK to move these
> files into the "docs" folder?
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>> Is there a requirement to keep these files under the project root or can
>> I
>>> put them into the "docs" folder?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> D.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for pointing this out guys - I evidently missed this piece.
>> Let's
>>>> have
>>>> it added...
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-434
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:02PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>>> On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>>>>>> Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release?
>> Pardon my
>>>>>> ignorance...
>>>>> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate
>> file.
>>>>> I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Brane
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
>>>>>>> Signature file looks good
>>>>>>> Checksum file looks good
>>>>>>> NOTICE file looks good
>>>>>>> LICENSE file looks good
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But -1 due to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER
>> for
>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>> We need this as part of Apache incubating
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Henry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>>>>>>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The following changes have been made:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
>>>>>>>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
>>>> docs/wiki
>>>>>>>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License
>> header,
>>>> should
>>>>>>>> they?)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please start voting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
>>>>>>>> 0 - don't care either way
>>>>>>>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
>> (explain
>>>> why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
No, I think they should be in the top-level directory. At least any other
Apache project I've seen had it this way.
Cos
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:50PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Sorry, I asked my questions incorrectly. Ignite now has README.txt,
> NOTICE.TXT, LICENSE.TXT, and RELEASE_NOTES.txt. Is it OK to move these
> files into the "docs" folder?
>
> D.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > Is there a requirement to keep these files under the project root or can
> > I
> > > put them into the "docs" folder?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing this out guys - I evidently missed this piece.
> > Let's
> > > > have
> > > > it added...
> > > >
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-434
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:02PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > > On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > > Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release?
> > Pardon my
> > > > > > ignorance...
> > > > >
> > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate
> > file.
> > > > > I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Brane
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> > > > > >> Signature file looks good
> > > > > >> Checksum file looks good
> > > > > >> NOTICE file looks good
> > > > > >> LICENSE file looks good
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But -1 due to:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> > > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER
> > for
> > > > > >> example.
> > > > > >> We need this as part of Apache incubating
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> - Henry
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > > >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > > > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> The following changes have been made:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > > > > >>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> > > > docs/wiki
> > > > > >>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License
> > header,
> > > > should
> > > > > >>> they?)
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Please start voting.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > > > > >>> 0 - don't care either way
> > > > > >>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > (explain
> > > > why)
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Sorry, I asked my questions incorrectly. Ignite now has README.txt,
NOTICE.TXT, LICENSE.TXT, and RELEASE_NOTES.txt. Is it OK to move these
files into the "docs" folder?
D.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > Is there a requirement to keep these files under the project root or can
> I
> > put them into the "docs" folder?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > D.
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for pointing this out guys - I evidently missed this piece.
> Let's
> > > have
> > > it added...
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-434
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:02PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > > Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release?
> Pardon my
> > > > > ignorance...
> > > >
> > > > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate
> file.
> > > > I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
> > > >
> > > > -- Brane
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> > > > >> Signature file looks good
> > > > >> Checksum file looks good
> > > > >> NOTICE file looks good
> > > > >> LICENSE file looks good
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But -1 due to:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> > > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER
> for
> > > > >> example.
> > > > >> We need this as part of Apache incubating
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> - Henry
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > > >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The following changes have been made:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > > > >>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> > > docs/wiki
> > > > >>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License
> header,
> > > should
> > > > >>> they?)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Please start voting.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > > > >>> 0 - don't care either way
> > > > >>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> (explain
> > > why)
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#notes-disclaimer
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Is there a requirement to keep these files under the project root or can I
> put them into the "docs" folder?
>
> Thanks,
> D.
>
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for pointing this out guys - I evidently missed this piece. Let's
> > have
> > it added...
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-434
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:02PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > > Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
> > > > ignorance...
> > >
> > > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> > >
> > >
> > > A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
> > > I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
> > >
> > > -- Brane
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> > > >> Signature file looks good
> > > >> Checksum file looks good
> > > >> NOTICE file looks good
> > > >> LICENSE file looks good
> > > >>
> > > >> But -1 due to:
> > > >>
> > > >> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> > > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
> > > >> example.
> > > >> We need this as part of Apache incubating
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> - Henry
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > > >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > > >>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The following changes have been made:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > > >>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> > docs/wiki
> > > >>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> > should
> > > >>> they?)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Please start voting.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > > >>> 0 - don't care either way
> > > >>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain
> > why)
> > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Is there a requirement to keep these files under the project root or can I
put them into the "docs" folder?
Thanks,
D.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out guys - I evidently missed this piece. Let's
> have
> it added...
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-434
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:02PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > > Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
> > > ignorance...
> >
> > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
> >
> >
> > A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
> > I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> > >> Signature file looks good
> > >> Checksum file looks good
> > >> NOTICE file looks good
> > >> LICENSE file looks good
> > >>
> > >> But -1 due to:
> > >>
> > >> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
> > >> example.
> > >> We need this as part of Apache incubating
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> - Henry
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> > >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > >>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > >>>
> > >>> The following changes have been made:
> > >>>
> > >>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > >>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> docs/wiki
> > >>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> should
> > >>> they?)
> > >>>
> > >>> Please start voting.
> > >>>
> > >>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > >>> 0 - don't care either way
> > >>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain
> why)
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Thanks for pointing this out guys - I evidently missed this piece. Let's have
it added...
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-434
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:02PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
> > ignorance...
>
> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
>
>
> A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
> I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
>
> -- Brane
>
> > On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> >> Signature file looks good
> >> Checksum file looks good
> >> NOTICE file looks good
> >> LICENSE file looks good
> >>
> >> But -1 due to:
> >>
> >> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
> >> example.
> >> We need this as part of Apache incubating
> >>
> >>
> >> - Henry
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> >>>
> >>> The following changes have been made:
> >>>
> >>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> >>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> >>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> >>> they?)
> >>>
> >>> Please start voting.
> >>>
> >>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> >>> 0 - don't care either way
> >>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 09.03.2015 21:54, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
> ignorance...
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html
A disclaimer is mandatory, but it doesn't have to be in a separate file.
I've seen is in NOTICE on other projects.
-- Brane
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
>> Signature file looks good
>> Checksum file looks good
>> NOTICE file looks good
>> LICENSE file looks good
>>
>> But -1 due to:
>>
>> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
>> example.
>> We need this as part of Apache incubating
>>
>>
>> - Henry
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>>>
>>> The following changes have been made:
>>>
>>> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
>>> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
>>> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
>>> they?)
>>>
>>> Please start voting.
>>>
>>> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
>>> 0 - don't care either way
>>> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Is DISCLAIMER really a requirement for an incubation release? Pardon my
ignorance...
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:31PM, Henry Saputra wrote:
> Signature file looks good
> Checksum file looks good
> NOTICE file looks good
> LICENSE file looks good
>
> But -1 due to:
>
> Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
> example.
> We need this as part of Apache incubating
>
>
> - Henry
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> >
> > The following changes have been made:
> >
> > - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> > they?)
> >
> > Please start voting.
> >
> > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > 0 - don't care either way
> > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Signature file looks good
Checksum file looks good
NOTICE file looks good
LICENSE file looks good
But -1 due to:
Missing DISCLAIMER file, see
https://github.com/apache/incubator-aurora/blob/master/DISCLAIMER for
example.
We need this as part of Apache incubating
- Henry
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>
> The following changes have been made:
>
> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> they?)
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, will review the RC this weekend
On Friday, March 6, 2015, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>
> The following changes have been made:
>
> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> they?)
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 06.03.2015 18:53, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> I guess that along warrants RC3. But perhaps it'd beneficial for the
>> project
>> if mentors can take a look at the current RC and, perhaps, spot other
>> things?
>>
> Yes, it will be very beneficial..
I'm planning to review the release bit this week-end.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> I guess that along warrants RC3. But perhaps it'd beneficial for the
> project
> if mentors can take a look at the current RC and, perhaps, spot other
> things?
>
Yes, it will be very beneficial..
>
> I know I will :)
> Cos
>
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:31AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> docs/wiki
> > > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> should
> > > they?)
> >
> > If they're part of the source release package, they should.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
I guess that along warrants RC3. But perhaps it'd beneficial for the project
if mentors can take a look at the current RC and, perhaps, spot other things?
I know I will :)
Cos
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 10:31AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> > they?)
>
> If they're part of the source release package, they should.
>
> -- Brane
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> they?)
If they're part of the source release package, they should.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:43AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Brane,
>
> Thanks for your comments, I believe I addressed them below. If there are no
> more comments, I will produce another release today.
>
> 1. Git Tag: release-1.0.0-RC2 (I think you missed it)
> 2. DISCLAIMER.txt is added.
> 3. licenses folder was removed.
> 4. executable bit on the text files will be fixed (good catch)
> 5. Instructions for RAT and maven build are added in DEVNOTES.txt:
>
> Maven Build Instructions
> ========================
> To build Ignite project (without running tests) use:
>
> mvn clean package -DskipTests
I believe you need to specify -P-release otherwise you'll step on the same git
issues, that I did. Or perhaps better yet, release profile shouldn't be set as
defatul?
> and look for ignite-fabric-<version>.zip at ./target directory.
>
>
> Apache RAT Instructions
> =======================
> To check license headers use:
>
> mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses
>
> For more information (exclude list and etc.) see "check-licenses" profile
> in pom.xml.
>
> D.
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > [I hope this finally gets to the list]
> >
> > On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> > >
> > > The following changes have been made:
> > >
> > > - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> > docs/wiki
> > > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> > should
> > > they?)
> > >
> > > Please start voting.
> > >
> > > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > > 0 - don't care either way
> > > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
> >
> >
> > -1 for the reasons described below.
> >
> >
> > 1. I can't find which tag or commit the release package was made from.
> > Maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
> >
> > 2. I couldn't find a rat-excludes file in the release package or on the
> > master branch, so I made a best guess at which files would be listed
> > there; but RAT flags many files in ./docs/wiki and ./modules that do not
> > have a license header or have invalid/unknown licenses.
> >
> > I'm quite surprised by the number of non-Apache licensed files in
> > ./modules. I believe we talked about optional dependencies in the past
> > (see, e.g., Message-ID: <54...@apache.org>), buy I'm not sure
> > if it was clear enough:
> >
> > * It is perfectly OK to have code that depends on libraries that have
> > an incompatible license (GPL is one such, for example), as long as
> > the dependency is optional
> > * It is fine to have the dependency itself in the repository for the
> > convenience of developers; however,
> > * Such dependencies must not be packaged in the release.
> >
> > Anything in the source package must be listed in NOTICE and LICENSE;
> > code under GPL or similar
> > incompatible licenses must *not* be distributed in an Apache release.
> > The build system can download the sources and/or libs/jars if the user
> > explicitly requests them. The build instructions, or the build scripts
> > themselves, should clearly inform the user that, by using such
> > extensions, the license terms of the compiled binary may change
> > significantly from the provisions of the ALv2.
> >
> > Example: Subversion has the provision to build a repository back-end
> > that uses Berkeley DB. BDB was originally licensed under GPL, so
> > Subversion's 'configure' script must be explicitly given the opion
> > '--with-berkeley-db' to use it, even if it can find it in the default
> > includes/libs location. Since version 6, BDB's license has changed, so
> > we added another flag, '--enable-bdb6'. If the user invokes configure
> > --with-berkeley-db but without the additional flag, and configure finds
> > BDB 6+, it prints the following warning:
> >
> > Berkeley DB 6 was found, but not used. Please re-run configure (see
> > ./config.nice) with the '--enable-bdb6' flag to use it,
> > or explicitly specify '--disable-bdb6' or '--without-berkeley-db'
> > to silence this warning.
> >
> > Please note that some versions of Berkeley DB 6+ are under the GNU
> > Affero
> > General Public License, version 3:
> > https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/000056.html
> >
> > The AGPL-3.0 licence may impose special requirements for making
> > available
> > source code of server-side software. The text of the licence is:
> > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
> > http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0
> >
> >
> > All of the above means that many parts of the ./modules directory should
> > be excluded from the source package, and these optional dependencies
> > should not be included in any binaries you provide.
> >
> > Exactly which licenses are incompatible is described here:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
> >
> >
> > 3. I'm trying to understand the intent of the ./licenses directory. The
> > files there seem to be instructions for IDEs to add the required license
> > headers to source files. I don't think this should be part of the
> > packaged source release, though of course there's nothing wrong if it is.
> >
> >
> > 4. Finally, I didn't find any instructions for building Ignite from
> > source, only installation instructions that assume it's already built.
> > Whilst telling people how to build from source isn't strictly required,
> > heh, Iwould expect to find at least a tiny hint.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Brane,
Thanks for your comments, I believe I addressed them below. If there are no
more comments, I will produce another release today.
1. Git Tag: release-1.0.0-RC2 (I think you missed it)
2. DISCLAIMER.txt is added.
3. licenses folder was removed.
4. executable bit on the text files will be fixed (good catch)
5. Instructions for RAT and maven build are added in DEVNOTES.txt:
Maven Build Instructions
========================
To build Ignite project (without running tests) use:
mvn clean package -DskipTests
and look for ignite-fabric-<version>.zip at ./target directory.
Apache RAT Instructions
=======================
To check license headers use:
mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses
For more information (exclude list and etc.) see "check-licenses" profile
in pom.xml.
D.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> [I hope this finally gets to the list]
>
> On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
> >
> > The following changes have been made:
> >
> > - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> > - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under
> docs/wiki
> > folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header,
> should
> > they?)
> >
> > Please start voting.
> >
> > +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> > 0 - don't care either way
> > -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
>
>
> -1 for the reasons described below.
>
>
> 1. I can't find which tag or commit the release package was made from.
> Maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
>
> 2. I couldn't find a rat-excludes file in the release package or on the
> master branch, so I made a best guess at which files would be listed
> there; but RAT flags many files in ./docs/wiki and ./modules that do not
> have a license header or have invalid/unknown licenses.
>
> I'm quite surprised by the number of non-Apache licensed files in
> ./modules. I believe we talked about optional dependencies in the past
> (see, e.g., Message-ID: <54...@apache.org>), buy I'm not sure
> if it was clear enough:
>
> * It is perfectly OK to have code that depends on libraries that have
> an incompatible license (GPL is one such, for example), as long as
> the dependency is optional
> * It is fine to have the dependency itself in the repository for the
> convenience of developers; however,
> * Such dependencies must not be packaged in the release.
>
> Anything in the source package must be listed in NOTICE and LICENSE;
> code under GPL or similar
> incompatible licenses must *not* be distributed in an Apache release.
> The build system can download the sources and/or libs/jars if the user
> explicitly requests them. The build instructions, or the build scripts
> themselves, should clearly inform the user that, by using such
> extensions, the license terms of the compiled binary may change
> significantly from the provisions of the ALv2.
>
> Example: Subversion has the provision to build a repository back-end
> that uses Berkeley DB. BDB was originally licensed under GPL, so
> Subversion's 'configure' script must be explicitly given the opion
> '--with-berkeley-db' to use it, even if it can find it in the default
> includes/libs location. Since version 6, BDB's license has changed, so
> we added another flag, '--enable-bdb6'. If the user invokes configure
> --with-berkeley-db but without the additional flag, and configure finds
> BDB 6+, it prints the following warning:
>
> Berkeley DB 6 was found, but not used. Please re-run configure (see
> ./config.nice) with the '--enable-bdb6' flag to use it,
> or explicitly specify '--disable-bdb6' or '--without-berkeley-db'
> to silence this warning.
>
> Please note that some versions of Berkeley DB 6+ are under the GNU
> Affero
> General Public License, version 3:
> https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/000056.html
>
> The AGPL-3.0 licence may impose special requirements for making
> available
> source code of server-side software. The text of the licence is:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
> http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0
>
>
> All of the above means that many parts of the ./modules directory should
> be excluded from the source package, and these optional dependencies
> should not be included in any binaries you provide.
>
> Exactly which licenses are incompatible is described here:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
>
>
> 3. I'm trying to understand the intent of the ./licenses directory. The
> files there seem to be instructions for IDEs to add the required license
> headers to source files. I don't think this should be part of the
> packaged source release, though of course there's nothing wrong if it is.
>
>
> 4. Finally, I didn't find any instructions for building Ignite from
> source, only installation instructions that assume it's already built.
> Whilst telling people how to build from source isn't strictly required,
> heh, Iwould expect to find at least a tiny hint.
>
> -- Brane
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC2 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
[I hope this finally gets to the list]
On 06.03.2015 09:18, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> I have uploaded the new 1.0 RC2 release to:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC2/
>
> The following changes have been made:
>
> - The RAT issues found before were fixed.
> - Documentation folder for Markdown documentation was added under docs/wiki
> folder (note that these files do not include Apache License header, should
> they?)
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept the RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept RC2 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
-1 for the reasons described below.
1. I can't find which tag or commit the release package was made from.
Maybe I'm not looking in the right places.
2. I couldn't find a rat-excludes file in the release package or on the
master branch, so I made a best guess at which files would be listed
there; but RAT flags many files in ./docs/wiki and ./modules that do not
have a license header or have invalid/unknown licenses.
I'm quite surprised by the number of non-Apache licensed files in
./modules. I believe we talked about optional dependencies in the past
(see, e.g., Message-ID: <54...@apache.org>), buy I'm not sure
if it was clear enough:
* It is perfectly OK to have code that depends on libraries that have
an incompatible license (GPL is one such, for example), as long as
the dependency is optional
* It is fine to have the dependency itself in the repository for the
convenience of developers; however,
* Such dependencies must not be packaged in the release.
Anything in the source package must be listed in NOTICE and LICENSE;
code under GPL or similar
incompatible licenses must *not* be distributed in an Apache release.
The build system can download the sources and/or libs/jars if the user
explicitly requests them. The build instructions, or the build scripts
themselves, should clearly inform the user that, by using such
extensions, the license terms of the compiled binary may change
significantly from the provisions of the ALv2.
Example: Subversion has the provision to build a repository back-end
that uses Berkeley DB. BDB was originally licensed under GPL, so
Subversion's 'configure' script must be explicitly given the opion
'--with-berkeley-db' to use it, even if it can find it in the default
includes/libs location. Since version 6, BDB's license has changed, so
we added another flag, '--enable-bdb6'. If the user invokes configure
--with-berkeley-db but without the additional flag, and configure finds
BDB 6+, it prints the following warning:
Berkeley DB 6 was found, but not used. Please re-run configure (see
./config.nice) with the '--enable-bdb6' flag to use it,
or explicitly specify '--disable-bdb6' or '--without-berkeley-db'
to silence this warning.
Please note that some versions of Berkeley DB 6+ are under the GNU Affero
General Public License, version 3:
https://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/bdb/2013-June/000056.html
The AGPL-3.0 licence may impose special requirements for making available
source code of server-side software. The text of the licence is:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
http://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0
All of the above means that many parts of the ./modules directory should
be excluded from the source package, and these optional dependencies
should not be included in any binaries you provide.
Exactly which licenses are incompatible is described here:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
3. I'm trying to understand the intent of the ./licenses directory. The
files there seem to be instructions for IDEs to add the required license
headers to source files. I don't think this should be part of the
packaged source release, though of course there's nothing wrong if it is.
4. Finally, I didn't find any instructions for building Ignite from
source, only installation instructions that assume it's already built.
Whilst telling people how to build from source isn't strictly required,
heh, Iwould expect to find at least a tiny hint.
-- Brane