You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@livy.apache.org by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID> on 2019/03/18 21:01:54 UTC
[VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
This vote is for releasing Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1.
The vote will be open at least 72 hours until Thursday March 21st, 21:00 UTC and
will pass with a minimum of 3 +1 binding votes and a majority of positive votes.
[+1] This release is ready to send to the Incubator PMC for approval
[-1] This release is not ready because...
This vote is held according to Apache Incubator release policy:
https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
The RC is based on tag v0.6.0-incubating-rc1:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/commit/b8861bbc3ad9aa0b7069fe1d7ae4a390bd422cb3
The release files can be found here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/0.6.0-incubating-rc1/
The staged maven artifacts can be found here:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelivy-1006
The list of resolved JIRAs in this release can be found here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LIVY/versions/12342736
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
I played with this a bit; found out it's generated by a maven plugin
enabled during the packaging.
The plugin seems to list everything; if a library is multi-licensed,
it will list the library multiple times. It doesn't seem there's a way
to choose which license to pick for a library, and that's probably
intentional.
The plugin also looks through all transitive dependencies, which is
probably where weirdness like jackson 1.8 comes from. But disabling
transitive dependencies makes the list incomplete (e.g. it won't list
jackson 1.9, which is actually packaged in Livy because Hadoop
libraries use it).
So I'm not sure there's much we can do unless someone wants to start
manually maintaining this stuff. I'm not signing up for that.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 6:27 PM Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> I'll double check tomorrow, but I checked 3 or 4 of the ones you
> listed and they're all dual licensed, one of them being the *GPL
> license and the other being an ASF-friendly one.
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:03 PM Marcelo Vanzin
> > <va...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Also, there are lots of version mismatching between the included jars
> > > > and the third-party license file
> > >
> > > Could you be a little more explicit about this one? I don't even see a
> > > 3rd party license file. What exactly is the expectation here?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marcelo
> >
> > When you extract the binary distro, there is a THIRD-PARTY file which
> > lists the external dependencies and their licenses.
> >
> > I tried to validate some and noticed a few mismatches on the version:
> >
> > jars/jackson-jaxrs-1.9.13.jar
> > * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
> > (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.8.3 -
> > http://jackson.codehaus.org)
> >
> > Also, I just noticed the following (L)GPL dependencies. Are these new
> > ? Were it introduced since the previous release? Or are these
> > dual-licensed?
> >
> >
> > GNU General Public Library:
> >
> > * Streaming API for XML (javax.xml.stream:stax-api:1.0-2 - no url defined)
> >
> > GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1:
> >
> > * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
> > (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.8.3 -
> > http://jackson.codehaus.org)
> > * Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
> > (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc:1.8.3 - http://jackson.codehaus.org)
> >
> > GPL:
> >
> > * JTransforms (com.github.rwl:jtransforms:2.4.0 -
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtransforms/)
> >
> > GPL2 w/ CPE:
> >
> > * JAXB API bundle for GlassFish V3 (javax.xml.bind:jaxb-api:2.2.2
> > - https://jaxb.dev.java.net/)
> > * JAXB RI (com.sun.xml.bind:jaxb-impl:2.2.3-1 - http://jaxb.java.net/)
> > * javax.ws.rs-api (javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api:2.0.1 -
> > http://jax-rs-spec.java.net)
> > * jersey-client (com.sun.jersey:jersey-client:1.9 -
> > https://jersey.java.net/jersey-client/)
> > * jersey-core (com.sun.jersey:jersey-core:1.9 -
> > https://jersey.java.net/jersey-core/)
> > * jersey-guice (com.sun.jersey.contribs:jersey-guice:1.9 -
> > https://jersey.java.net/jersey-contribs/jersey-guice/)
> > * jersey-json (com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:1.9 -
> > https://jersey.java.net/jersey-json/)
> > * jersey-server (com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1.9 -
> > https://jersey.java.net/jersey-server/)
> >
> > GPLv2+CE:
> >
> > * JavaMail API (compat) (javax.mail:mail:1.4.7 -
> > http://kenai.com/projects/javamail/mail)
> >
> > LGPL:
> >
> > * JTransforms (com.github.rwl:jtransforms:2.4.0 -
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtransforms/)
> >
> > LGPL 2.1:
> >
> > * Javassist (org.javassist:javassist:3.18.1-GA - http://www.javassist.org/)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> --
> Marcelo
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
I'll double check tomorrow, but I checked 3 or 4 of the ones you
listed and they're all dual licensed, one of them being the *GPL
license and the other being an ASF-friendly one.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:45 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:03 PM Marcelo Vanzin
> <va...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also, there are lots of version mismatching between the included jars
> > > and the third-party license file
> >
> > Could you be a little more explicit about this one? I don't even see a
> > 3rd party license file. What exactly is the expectation here?
> >
> > --
> > Marcelo
>
> When you extract the binary distro, there is a THIRD-PARTY file which
> lists the external dependencies and their licenses.
>
> I tried to validate some and noticed a few mismatches on the version:
>
> jars/jackson-jaxrs-1.9.13.jar
> * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
> (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.8.3 -
> http://jackson.codehaus.org)
>
> Also, I just noticed the following (L)GPL dependencies. Are these new
> ? Were it introduced since the previous release? Or are these
> dual-licensed?
>
>
> GNU General Public Library:
>
> * Streaming API for XML (javax.xml.stream:stax-api:1.0-2 - no url defined)
>
> GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1:
>
> * JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
> (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.8.3 -
> http://jackson.codehaus.org)
> * Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
> (org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc:1.8.3 - http://jackson.codehaus.org)
>
> GPL:
>
> * JTransforms (com.github.rwl:jtransforms:2.4.0 -
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtransforms/)
>
> GPL2 w/ CPE:
>
> * JAXB API bundle for GlassFish V3 (javax.xml.bind:jaxb-api:2.2.2
> - https://jaxb.dev.java.net/)
> * JAXB RI (com.sun.xml.bind:jaxb-impl:2.2.3-1 - http://jaxb.java.net/)
> * javax.ws.rs-api (javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api:2.0.1 -
> http://jax-rs-spec.java.net)
> * jersey-client (com.sun.jersey:jersey-client:1.9 -
> https://jersey.java.net/jersey-client/)
> * jersey-core (com.sun.jersey:jersey-core:1.9 -
> https://jersey.java.net/jersey-core/)
> * jersey-guice (com.sun.jersey.contribs:jersey-guice:1.9 -
> https://jersey.java.net/jersey-contribs/jersey-guice/)
> * jersey-json (com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:1.9 -
> https://jersey.java.net/jersey-json/)
> * jersey-server (com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1.9 -
> https://jersey.java.net/jersey-server/)
>
> GPLv2+CE:
>
> * JavaMail API (compat) (javax.mail:mail:1.4.7 -
> http://kenai.com/projects/javamail/mail)
>
> LGPL:
>
> * JTransforms (com.github.rwl:jtransforms:2.4.0 -
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtransforms/)
>
> LGPL 2.1:
>
> * Javassist (org.javassist:javassist:3.18.1-GA - http://www.javassist.org/)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 4:03 PM Marcelo Vanzin
<va...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Also, there are lots of version mismatching between the included jars
> > and the third-party license file
>
> Could you be a little more explicit about this one? I don't even see a
> 3rd party license file. What exactly is the expectation here?
>
> --
> Marcelo
When you extract the binary distro, there is a THIRD-PARTY file which
lists the external dependencies and their licenses.
I tried to validate some and noticed a few mismatches on the version:
jars/jackson-jaxrs-1.9.13.jar
* JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.8.3 -
http://jackson.codehaus.org)
Also, I just noticed the following (L)GPL dependencies. Are these new
? Were it introduced since the previous release? Or are these
dual-licensed?
GNU General Public Library:
* Streaming API for XML (javax.xml.stream:stax-api:1.0-2 - no url defined)
GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), Version 2.1:
* JAX-RS provider for JSON content type
(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs:1.8.3 -
http://jackson.codehaus.org)
* Xml Compatibility extensions for Jackson
(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc:1.8.3 - http://jackson.codehaus.org)
GPL:
* JTransforms (com.github.rwl:jtransforms:2.4.0 -
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtransforms/)
GPL2 w/ CPE:
* JAXB API bundle for GlassFish V3 (javax.xml.bind:jaxb-api:2.2.2
- https://jaxb.dev.java.net/)
* JAXB RI (com.sun.xml.bind:jaxb-impl:2.2.3-1 - http://jaxb.java.net/)
* javax.ws.rs-api (javax.ws.rs:javax.ws.rs-api:2.0.1 -
http://jax-rs-spec.java.net)
* jersey-client (com.sun.jersey:jersey-client:1.9 -
https://jersey.java.net/jersey-client/)
* jersey-core (com.sun.jersey:jersey-core:1.9 -
https://jersey.java.net/jersey-core/)
* jersey-guice (com.sun.jersey.contribs:jersey-guice:1.9 -
https://jersey.java.net/jersey-contribs/jersey-guice/)
* jersey-json (com.sun.jersey:jersey-json:1.9 -
https://jersey.java.net/jersey-json/)
* jersey-server (com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1.9 -
https://jersey.java.net/jersey-server/)
GPLv2+CE:
* JavaMail API (compat) (javax.mail:mail:1.4.7 -
http://kenai.com/projects/javamail/mail)
LGPL:
* JTransforms (com.github.rwl:jtransforms:2.4.0 -
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtransforms/)
LGPL 2.1:
* Javassist (org.javassist:javassist:3.18.1-GA - http://www.javassist.org/)
--
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, there are lots of version mismatching between the included jars
> and the third-party license file
Could you be a little more explicit about this one? I don't even see a
3rd party license file. What exactly is the expectation here?
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
Ok, I can take a look at replacing that empty jar. Since it's empty it
should be easy, hopefully.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:44 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 14:29 Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > There has been a lot of discussion around this, but at the moment it's
> > > not acceptable to have binary jars in a source release.
> >
> > Can you clarify this?
> >
> > There are two ways to interpret that:
> >
> > - no jars files in the source archive. There is an empty test jar file
> > in the source archive, don't think that counts.
> >
> > - releasing binaries at all. I saw a bunch of discussion around that
> > and my understanding is that a lot of people are actually very pro
> > having "convenience binaries".
> >
> > Anyway, whatever the IPMC says. If we'll only have a zip file of the
> > sources, preparing the release will be much simpler, but also much
> > less useful (no maven artifacts, for example).
> >
> > --
> > Marcelo
>
>
> The issue is the test jar on the source distro. I tried for over a month
> on this while I was releasing Toree and gave up. You could use the Spark
> utility that builds a jar from scratch for you or download a jar from a
> maven repo.
>
>
> > --
> Sent from my Mobile device
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 14:29 Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.invalid>
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > There has been a lot of discussion around this, but at the moment it's
> > not acceptable to have binary jars in a source release.
>
> Can you clarify this?
>
> There are two ways to interpret that:
>
> - no jars files in the source archive. There is an empty test jar file
> in the source archive, don't think that counts.
>
> - releasing binaries at all. I saw a bunch of discussion around that
> and my understanding is that a lot of people are actually very pro
> having "convenience binaries".
>
> Anyway, whatever the IPMC says. If we'll only have a zip file of the
> sources, preparing the release will be much simpler, but also much
> less useful (no maven artifacts, for example).
>
> --
> Marcelo
The issue is the test jar on the source distro. I tried for over a month
on this while I was releasing Toree and gave up. You could use the Spark
utility that builds a jar from scratch for you or download a jar from a
maven repo.
> --
Sent from my Mobile device
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion around this, but at the moment it's
> not acceptable to have binary jars in a source release.
Can you clarify this?
There are two ways to interpret that:
- no jars files in the source archive. There is an empty test jar file
in the source archive, don't think that counts.
- releasing binaries at all. I saw a bunch of discussion around that
and my understanding is that a lot of people are actually very pro
having "convenience binaries".
Anyway, whatever the IPMC says. If we'll only have a zip file of the
sources, preparing the release will be much simpler, but also much
less useful (no maven artifacts, for example).
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
-1
There has been a lot of discussion around this, but at the moment it's
not acceptable to have binary jars in a source release.
Also, there are lots of version mismatching between the included jars
and the third-party license file
Minor:
Extract folder should prefix apache in the name (e.g. apache-livy-xxx
instead of livy-xxx)
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:02 PM Marcelo Vanzin
<va...@cloudera.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> This vote is for releasing Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1.
>
> The vote will be open at least 72 hours until Thursday March 21st, 21:00 UTC and
> will pass with a minimum of 3 +1 binding votes and a majority of positive votes.
>
> [+1] This release is ready to send to the Incubator PMC for approval
>
> [-1] This release is not ready because...
>
> This vote is held according to Apache Incubator release policy:
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
>
> The RC is based on tag v0.6.0-incubating-rc1:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/commit/b8861bbc3ad9aa0b7069fe1d7ae4a390bd422cb3
>
> The release files can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/0.6.0-incubating-rc1/
>
> The staged maven artifacts can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelivy-1006
>
> The list of resolved JIRAs in this release can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LIVY/versions/12342736
>
> --
> Marcelo
--
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
FYI I'm cancelling this vote in favor of rc2.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:01 PM Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> This vote is for releasing Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1.
>
> The vote will be open at least 72 hours until Thursday March 21st, 21:00 UTC and
> will pass with a minimum of 3 +1 binding votes and a majority of positive votes.
>
> [+1] This release is ready to send to the Incubator PMC for approval
>
> [-1] This release is not ready because...
>
> This vote is held according to Apache Incubator release policy:
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
>
> The RC is based on tag v0.6.0-incubating-rc1:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/commit/b8861bbc3ad9aa0b7069fe1d7ae4a390bd422cb3
>
> The release files can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/0.6.0-incubating-rc1/
>
> The staged maven artifacts can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelivy-1006
>
> The list of resolved JIRAs in this release can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LIVY/versions/12342736
>
> --
> Marcelo
--
Marcelo
Re: [VOTE] Release Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1
Posted by Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com.INVALID>.
I'm starting with my own +1.
But please note one important thing: I built this RC while tweaking
the release scripts. Because of that, the thriftserver module wasn't
enabled when I built the binary archive.
Since it's a new module that is less tested than the rest of the code,
I thought it was ok to send RC1 without it. If people feel strongly it
should be in the binary package, I can create an RC2.
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 2:01 PM Marcelo Vanzin <va...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> This vote is for releasing Livy 0.6.0 based on RC1.
>
> The vote will be open at least 72 hours until Thursday March 21st, 21:00 UTC and
> will pass with a minimum of 3 +1 binding votes and a majority of positive votes.
>
> [+1] This release is ready to send to the Incubator PMC for approval
>
> [-1] This release is not ready because...
>
> This vote is held according to Apache Incubator release policy:
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases
>
> The RC is based on tag v0.6.0-incubating-rc1:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-livy/commit/b8861bbc3ad9aa0b7069fe1d7ae4a390bd422cb3
>
> The release files can be found here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/livy/0.6.0-incubating-rc1/
>
> The staged maven artifacts can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachelivy-1006
>
> The list of resolved JIRAs in this release can be found here:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/LIVY/versions/12342736
>
> --
> Marcelo
--
Marcelo