You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@daffodil.apache.org by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> on 2018/03/03 13:52:52 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1
Dave,
In our general@incubator VOTE for rc2, Justin McClean suggested that the
copyrights for the BSD license and others should be in the LICENSE
rather than the NOTICE [1], which to me seems to conflict with point (1)
below. He also provided links that backup his suggestion. Were there
special circumstances for these files that necessitated moving the
copyright lines to the NOTICE?
For reference, the commit that made the suggested changes was PR-43 [2].
Thanks,
- Steve
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7bdfc3eefae4951827b9a8f626e34ed3bdd584a3819498af45a8b866@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/43/
On 02/12/2018 03:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi -
>
> A few quick comments from a partial review of the Source and Binary release.
>
> (1) LICENSE & NOTICE.
>
> (a) The copyright portions that are in the LICENSE on the various licenses
> should be moved to the NOTICE. The LICENSE should still include which files are
> under the other licenses.
>
> (b) The Open Grid Forum DFDL v1.0 license needs to be confirmed as permissible
> by the Legal Affairs committee. This should include guidance about NOTICE vs.
> LICENSE. Legal JIRA issues can be created in the issue tracker.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL
>
> (2) .rat-excludes
>
> (a) The following should not be excluded. RAT should pick up the licenses as
> category A if they are present.
> # passera is 3-clause BSD
> passera
>
> # copyright Scala BSD license
> Utility.scala
> UniquenessCache.scala
>
> # copyright w3c with permissive license
> XMLSchema.dtd
> XMLSchema.xsd
> XMLSchema_for_DFDL.xsd
> datatypes.dtd
> xml.xsd
>
> (b) Test files.
>
> For the future, but not now. There have been debates in other projects. Guidance
> from some on legal-discuss@ has been to include license headers in test files
> and then have the test tooling eliminate the license so that tests do not have
> to take it into account or be rewritten.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> I believe we have now resolved all issues raised so far in 2.1.0-rc1.
>> The name changes in dist/dev/daffodil will go into effect for the rc2
>> release files.
>>
>> John or Dave, have either of you had a chance to review the release any
>> further? We'd definitely like to incorporate any of your feedback before
>> we create an rc2 release.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Steve
>>
>> On 02/08/2018 01:24 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>> Well, before starting a new let's review the existing. I would like a bit
>>> of time to review the whole release archive.
>>>
>>> What you mentioned is correct, effectively anything on the /dist/dev should
>>> comply with the package naming scheme. You should consider whether or not
>>> you want to put everything on /dist/dev (we tend to recommend only the
>>> source release goes there, to avoid confusion). When projects do stage
>>> other artifacts there, they should all be named the same way.
>>>
>>> I have a long standing disagreement with many IPMC members. I tend to
>>> follow the release requirements very closely and push back on an over
>>> assumption of the requirements. Most projects implement the -incubating
>>> suffix as a part of the version #, but that's not required. So my
>>> interpretation is that maven distributions do not need to include
>>> -incubating. We have set this precedent before with Apache Groovy where
>>> only the source release was staged and voted upon, the actual maven central
>>> distribution omitted the -incubating and I'm in full support of that
>>> approach.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:58 PM Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
>>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Multiple issues have been found with this release, so I am officially
>>>> canceling this vote. We would still ask for continued review of the
>>>> 2.1.0-rc1 release so that any issues found can be fixed in the 2.1.0-rc2
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Steve
>>>>
>>>> On 02/08/2018 11:30 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating)
>>>> 2.1.0-rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
>>>>> found at:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc1/
>>>>>
>>>>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1000/
>>>>>
>>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
>>>>> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
>>>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
>>>>>
>>>>> It is also listed here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
>>>>>
>>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1864?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>>>>>
>>>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours
>>>>> (ends on Sunday, 11 February 2018, 12 Noon EST).
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>
>>>>> My vote: +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1
Posted by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>.
DAFFDOIL-1906 [1] was created to document the issues you pointed out,
but maybe didn't realize the issues included the copyright lines/BSD
licenses in NOTICE. Sounds to me like as part of DAFFODIL-1906, we also
need to revert the parts of PR-43 [2] that modified NOTICE/LICENSE
information?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1906
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/43/
On 03/03/2018 09:09 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Steve,
>
> I pointed out the same issues that Justin pointed out on the dev vote [3].
> I also requested that there be JIRAs to document these gaps, did those get
> created?
>
> [3]:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6eb215c8a49c2dd245b72353b06ea8d7542e34ee5239eada33e55b88@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E
>
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:52 AM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> In our general@incubator VOTE for rc2, Justin McClean suggested that the
>> copyrights for the BSD license and others should be in the LICENSE
>> rather than the NOTICE [1], which to me seems to conflict with point (1)
>> below. He also provided links that backup his suggestion. Were there
>> special circumstances for these files that necessitated moving the
>> copyright lines to the NOTICE?
>>
>> For reference, the commit that made the suggested changes was PR-43 [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Steve
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7bdfc3eefae4951827b9a8f626e34ed3bdd584a3819498af45a8b866@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/43/
>>
>> On 02/12/2018 03:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>> Hi -
>>>
>>> A few quick comments from a partial review of the Source and Binary
>> release.
>>>
>>> (1) LICENSE & NOTICE.
>>>
>>> (a) The copyright portions that are in the LICENSE on the various
>> licenses
>>> should be moved to the NOTICE. The LICENSE should still include which
>> files are
>>> under the other licenses.
>>>
>>> (b) The Open Grid Forum DFDL v1.0 license needs to be confirmed as
>> permissible
>>> by the Legal Affairs committee. This should include guidance about
>> NOTICE vs.
>>> LICENSE. Legal JIRA issues can be created in the issue tracker.
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL
>>>
>>> (2) .rat-excludes
>>>
>>> (a) The following should not be excluded. RAT should pick up the
>> licenses as
>>> category A if they are present.
>>> # passera is 3-clause BSD
>>> passera
>>>
>>> # copyright Scala BSD license
>>> Utility.scala
>>> UniquenessCache.scala
>>>
>>> # copyright w3c with permissive license
>>> XMLSchema.dtd
>>> XMLSchema.xsd
>>> XMLSchema_for_DFDL.xsd
>>> datatypes.dtd
>>> xml.xsd
>>>
>>> (b) Test files.
>>>
>>> For the future, but not now. There have been debates in other projects.
>> Guidance
>>> from some on legal-discuss@ has been to include license headers in test
>> files
>>> and then have the test tooling eliminate the license so that tests do
>> not have
>>> to take it into account or be rewritten.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
>>>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I believe we have now resolved all issues raised so far in 2.1.0-rc1.
>>>> The name changes in dist/dev/daffodil will go into effect for the rc2
>>>> release files.
>>>>
>>>> John or Dave, have either of you had a chance to review the release any
>>>> further? We'd definitely like to incorporate any of your feedback before
>>>> we create an rc2 release.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Steve
>>>>
>>>> On 02/08/2018 01:24 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>>>> Well, before starting a new let's review the existing. I would like a
>> bit
>>>>> of time to review the whole release archive.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you mentioned is correct, effectively anything on the /dist/dev
>> should
>>>>> comply with the package naming scheme. You should consider whether or
>> not
>>>>> you want to put everything on /dist/dev (we tend to recommend only the
>>>>> source release goes there, to avoid confusion). When projects do stage
>>>>> other artifacts there, they should all be named the same way.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a long standing disagreement with many IPMC members. I tend to
>>>>> follow the release requirements very closely and push back on an over
>>>>> assumption of the requirements. Most projects implement the
>> -incubating
>>>>> suffix as a part of the version #, but that's not required. So my
>>>>> interpretation is that maven distributions do not need to include
>>>>> -incubating. We have set this precedent before with Apache Groovy
>> where
>>>>> only the source release was staged and voted upon, the actual maven
>> central
>>>>> distribution omitted the -incubating and I'm in full support of that
>>>>> approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:58 PM Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
>>>>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Multiple issues have been found with this release, so I am officially
>>>>>> canceling this vote. We would still ask for continued review of the
>>>>>> 2.1.0-rc1 release so that any issues found can be fixed in the
>> 2.1.0-rc2
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/08/2018 11:30 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating)
>>>>>> 2.1.0-rc1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
>>>>>>> found at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc1/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1000/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
>>>>>>> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS
>> file.
>>>>>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is also listed here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1864?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours
>>>>>>> (ends on Sunday, 11 February 2018, 12 Noon EST).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [ ] +1 approve
>>>>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>>>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My vote: +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> - Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc1
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Steve,
I pointed out the same issues that Justin pointed out on the dev vote [3].
I also requested that there be JIRAs to document these gaps, did those get
created?
[3]:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6eb215c8a49c2dd245b72353b06ea8d7542e34ee5239eada33e55b88@%3Cdev.daffodil.apache.org%3E
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:52 AM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dave,
>
> In our general@incubator VOTE for rc2, Justin McClean suggested that the
> copyrights for the BSD license and others should be in the LICENSE
> rather than the NOTICE [1], which to me seems to conflict with point (1)
> below. He also provided links that backup his suggestion. Were there
> special circumstances for these files that necessitated moving the
> copyright lines to the NOTICE?
>
> For reference, the commit that made the suggested changes was PR-43 [2].
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
> [1]
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/7bdfc3eefae4951827b9a8f626e34ed3bdd584a3819498af45a8b866@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/pull/43/
>
> On 02/12/2018 03:46 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> > A few quick comments from a partial review of the Source and Binary
> release.
> >
> > (1) LICENSE & NOTICE.
> >
> > (a) The copyright portions that are in the LICENSE on the various
> licenses
> > should be moved to the NOTICE. The LICENSE should still include which
> files are
> > under the other licenses.
> >
> > (b) The Open Grid Forum DFDL v1.0 license needs to be confirmed as
> permissible
> > by the Legal Affairs committee. This should include guidance about
> NOTICE vs.
> > LICENSE. Legal JIRA issues can be created in the issue tracker.
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LEGAL
> >
> > (2) .rat-excludes
> >
> > (a) The following should not be excluded. RAT should pick up the
> licenses as
> > category A if they are present.
> > # passera is 3-clause BSD
> > passera
> >
> > # copyright Scala BSD license
> > Utility.scala
> > UniquenessCache.scala
> >
> > # copyright w3c with permissive license
> > XMLSchema.dtd
> > XMLSchema.xsd
> > XMLSchema_for_DFDL.xsd
> > datatypes.dtd
> > xml.xsd
> >
> > (b) Test files.
> >
> > For the future, but not now. There have been debates in other projects.
> Guidance
> > from some on legal-discuss@ has been to include license headers in test
> files
> > and then have the test tooling eliminate the license so that tests do
> not have
> > to take it into account or be rewritten.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >> On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
> >> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe we have now resolved all issues raised so far in 2.1.0-rc1.
> >> The name changes in dist/dev/daffodil will go into effect for the rc2
> >> release files.
> >>
> >> John or Dave, have either of you had a chance to review the release any
> >> further? We'd definitely like to incorporate any of your feedback before
> >> we create an rc2 release.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Steve
> >>
> >> On 02/08/2018 01:24 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> >>> Well, before starting a new let's review the existing. I would like a
> bit
> >>> of time to review the whole release archive.
> >>>
> >>> What you mentioned is correct, effectively anything on the /dist/dev
> should
> >>> comply with the package naming scheme. You should consider whether or
> not
> >>> you want to put everything on /dist/dev (we tend to recommend only the
> >>> source release goes there, to avoid confusion). When projects do stage
> >>> other artifacts there, they should all be named the same way.
> >>>
> >>> I have a long standing disagreement with many IPMC members. I tend to
> >>> follow the release requirements very closely and push back on an over
> >>> assumption of the requirements. Most projects implement the
> -incubating
> >>> suffix as a part of the version #, but that's not required. So my
> >>> interpretation is that maven distributions do not need to include
> >>> -incubating. We have set this precedent before with Apache Groovy
> where
> >>> only the source release was staged and voted upon, the actual maven
> central
> >>> distribution omitted the -incubating and I'm in full support of that
> >>> approach.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:58 PM Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
> >>> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Multiple issues have been found with this release, so I am officially
> >>>> canceling this vote. We would still ask for continued review of the
> >>>> 2.1.0-rc1 release so that any issues found can be fixed in the
> 2.1.0-rc2
> >>>> release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> - Steve
> >>>>
> >>>> On 02/08/2018 11:30 AM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating)
> >>>> 2.1.0-rc1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> >>>>> found at:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc1/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1000/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
> >>>>> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS
> file.
> >>>>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is also listed here:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc1.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1864?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours
> >>>>> (ends on Sunday, 11 February 2018, 12 Noon EST).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [ ] +1 approve
> >>>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>>>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My vote: +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> - Steve
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>