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 2015/03/13 00:14:14 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC3 release
I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
released to public domain under creative commons.
4. Removed "licenses" folder
Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
in DEVNOTES.txt file.
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 RC3 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Sorry, the footer should say RC3, not RC2 (fixed).
D.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
>
> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
>
> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
> released to public domain under creative commons.
> 4. Removed "licenses" folder
>
> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept the RC3 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept RC3 as Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 (explain why)
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC3 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 07:55AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 13.03.2015 04:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Checksums are ok
> > Signature is ok
> > rat report looks good
> > sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least now
> > it is easy to validate, so issue for me.
> >
> > -1 however (sorry) because
> >
> > - top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be
> > incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the archive
> > and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted to the
> > release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file names
> > will remain the same.
>
> On this point: there's really no reason to put -RC3 in the actual
> package name or the unzipped directory name if you intend to release
> without the release-candidate tag. Just call it
> ignite-incubating-1.0.0.zip (and .zip.asc and .zip.sha1, etc.). Once a
> release vote passes, the *only* thing that should happen to the files is
> them being copied to the dist/release repository; no renaming.
I believe this is what I said. By directory I meant the one where the files
are published. Sorry, if my explanation was convoluted - dealing with some
.... @work tonight ;(
> It's not as if anyone is likely to be confused by the lack of the -RC?
> tag, because no-one except developers should see the package until it is
> released. (This ties in with the publishing rules, fwiw.)
>
> Alternatively, as I said elsewhere, you can release something as a
> release candidate, but you have to establish what exactly that means for
> users in terms of API and ABI compatibility with a "real" release.
>
> > Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get the
> > wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically.
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
> >>
> >> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
> >>
> >> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
> >> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
> >> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
> >> released to public domain under creative commons.
> >> 4. Removed "licenses" folder
> >>
> >> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
> >> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
> >>
> >> 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 RC3 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 13.03.2015 04:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Checksums are ok
> Signature is ok
> rat report looks good
> sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least now
> it is easy to validate, so issue for me.
>
> -1 however (sorry) because
>
> - top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be
> incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the archive
> and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted to the
> release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file names
> will remain the same.
On this point: there's really no reason to put -RC3 in the actual
package name or the unzipped directory name if you intend to release
without the release-candidate tag. Just call it
ignite-incubating-1.0.0.zip (and .zip.asc and .zip.sha1, etc.). Once a
release vote passes, the *only* thing that should happen to the files is
them being copied to the dist/release repository; no renaming.
It's not as if anyone is likely to be confused by the lack of the -RC?
tag, because no-one except developers should see the package until it is
released. (This ties in with the publishing rules, fwiw.)
Alternatively, as I said elsewhere, you can release something as a
release candidate, but you have to establish what exactly that means for
users in terms of API and ABI compatibility with a "real" release.
> Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get the
> wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically.
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
>>
>> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
>>
>> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
>> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
>> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
>> released to public domain under creative commons.
>> 4. Removed "licenses" folder
>>
>> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
>> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
>>
>> 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 RC3 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 13.03.2015 05:03, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> One more:
> when the binaries are built and ran the version says
>
> Ignite ver. 1.0.0-rc3#19691231-sha1:DEV
>
> Instead of 1.0.0 I believe. Although I was building with -P-release, so may be
> it is a side effect of that.
>
> And this error is still there
> ./bin/ignitevisorcmd.sh
> Error: Could not find or load main class org.apache.ignite.visor.commands.VisorConsole
>
> Which perhaps isn't a blocker for the release
It works for me.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC3 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
One more:
when the binaries are built and ran the version says
Ignite ver. 1.0.0-rc3#19691231-sha1:DEV
Instead of 1.0.0 I believe. Although I was building with -P-release, so may be
it is a side effect of that.
And this error is still there
./bin/ignitevisorcmd.sh
Error: Could not find or load main class org.apache.ignite.visor.commands.VisorConsole
Which perhaps isn't a blocker for the release
Cos
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 03:42AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Checksums are ok
> Signature is ok
> rat report looks good
> sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least now
> it is easy to validate, so issue for me.
>
> -1 however (sorry) because
>
> - top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be
> incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the archive
> and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted to the
> release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file names
> will remain the same.
>
> Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get the
> wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically.
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
> >
> > The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
> >
> > 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
> > 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
> > 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
> > released to public domain under creative commons.
> > 4. Removed "licenses" folder
> >
> > Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
> > in DEVNOTES.txt file.
> >
> > 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 RC3 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 13.03.2015 09:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 13.03.2015 08:41, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>> Brane,
>>>
>>> 1. The license files you are seeing are used for the binary builds and
>> are
>>> not related to the source code. I believe we are not violating any ASF
>>> policies here by having these files under the source tree.
>> Sure, I was just wondering why they're there. As a matter of interest:
>> how and why does the binary build use a GPL license file?
>>
> They are there for informational purposes only. For example, our optional
> hibernate module does not have any hibernate code, but does have a binary
> dependency on the hibernate jar. We provide the license simply to inform
> the user that this dependency, if used and enabled, will bring in another
> license into their application.
>
> Does this make sense?
Sure, thanks.
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC3 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 13.03.2015 08:41, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > Brane,
> >
> > 1. The license files you are seeing are used for the binary builds and
> are
> > not related to the source code. I believe we are not violating any ASF
> > policies here by having these files under the source tree.
>
> Sure, I was just wondering why they're there. As a matter of interest:
> how and why does the binary build use a GPL license file?
>
They are there for informational purposes only. For example, our optional
hibernate module does not have any hibernate code, but does have a binary
dependency on the hibernate jar. We provide the license simply to inform
the user that this dependency, if used and enabled, will bring in another
license into their application.
Does this make sense?
>
> > 2. The classes in "org.jdk8.backport" package are standard Java8 classes
> > copied over to our source tree. The headers are standard headers from the
> > java source code:
> >
> > See here for example:
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b27/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> >
> > The whole OpenJDK is licensed under GPL w/ CPE, however, some classes
> from
> > java.util.concurrent as also released to the public domain by Doug Lee.
> > These classes are dual licensed, and I am not sure why we need to waste
> > time asking if the code submitted to the "public domain" is allowed under
> > ASF. Public domain code is clearly allowed.
>
> Ah, with the help of this I now found
>
>
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/file/tip/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>
> which appears to be the canonical source of those files.
>
> Oh well ... I suppose it's not our problem to verify that one Doug Lee
> actually had permission to release those files to the public domain.
>
> -- Brane
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC3 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 13.03.2015 08:41, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Brane,
>
> 1. The license files you are seeing are used for the binary builds and are
> not related to the source code. I believe we are not violating any ASF
> policies here by having these files under the source tree.
Sure, I was just wondering why they're there. As a matter of interest:
how and why does the binary build use a GPL license file?
> 2. The classes in "org.jdk8.backport" package are standard Java8 classes
> copied over to our source tree. The headers are standard headers from the
> java source code:
>
> See here for example:
> http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b27/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>
> The whole OpenJDK is licensed under GPL w/ CPE, however, some classes from
> java.util.concurrent as also released to the public domain by Doug Lee.
> These classes are dual licensed, and I am not sure why we need to waste
> time asking if the code submitted to the "public domain" is allowed under
> ASF. Public domain code is clearly allowed.
Ah, with the help of this I now found
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/file/tip/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
which appears to be the canonical source of those files.
Oh well ... I suppose it's not our problem to verify that one Doug Lee
actually had permission to release those files to the public domain.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.0.0 RC3 release
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Brane,
1. The license files you are seeing are used for the binary builds and are
not related to the source code. I believe we are not violating any ASF
policies here by having these files under the source tree.
2. The classes in "org.jdk8.backport" package are standard Java8 classes
copied over to our source tree. The headers are standard headers from the
java source code:
See here for example:
http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/6-b27/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
The whole OpenJDK is licensed under GPL w/ CPE, however, some classes from
java.util.concurrent as also released to the public domain by Doug Lee.
These classes are dual licensed, and I am not sure why we need to waste
time asking if the code submitted to the "public domain" is allowed under
ASF. Public domain code is clearly allowed.
Can you please comment on (1) and (2)?
D.
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 13.03.2015 04:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Checksums are ok
> > Signature is ok
> > rat report looks good
>
>
> When I run RAT it on the release package I still see GPL license files
> in ./modules (even if the code itself is no longer there), and some
> other licenses that apparently aren't associated with any actual code.
> The 'mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses' ignores these files, but why
> are they there in the first place? I'm talking about these files:
>
> ./modules/aop/licenses/aspectj-epl-license.txt
> ./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt
> ./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt
> ./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
> ./modules/indexing/licenses/h2-epl-license.txt
> ./modules/scalar/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
> ./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
> ./modules/ssh/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
> ./modules/tools/licenses/jodd-revised-bsd.txt
> ./modules/urideploy/licenses/jtidy-license.txt
> ./modules/visor-console/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
> ./modules/visor-console/licenses/jline-bsd-license.txt
> ./modules/visor-console/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
>
>
>
>
> I'm also very confused by the license headers in org.jdk8.backport files:
>
> /*
> * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
> *
> * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as
> * published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this
> * particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided
> * by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code.
> *
> * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
> * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
> * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that
> * accompanied this code).
> *
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> version
> * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
> * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
> *
> * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
> * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any
> * questions.
> */
>
> /*
> * This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public
> * License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> * However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this
> * file:
> *
> * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
> * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
> * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> */
>
>
>
> I have no clue how something can be licensed under GPL2 and released to
> the public domain at the same time. Is there some kind of announcement
> anywhere that we can link to that makes this clear? Because as thing
> stand now, if we release this, we'd be opening the ASF to legal action
> from Oracle.
>
> I think we simply don't know enough at this point. I propose we take
> this question to general@incubator, maybe someone there has had
> experience with similar cases.
>
>
> -- Brane
>
>
> > sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least
> now
> > it is easy to validate, so issue for me.
> >
> > -1 however (sorry) because
> >
> > - top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be
> > incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the
> archive
> > and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted
> to the
> > release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file
> names
> > will remain the same.
> >
> > Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get
> the
> > wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically.
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
> >>
> >> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
> >>
> >> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
> >> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
> >> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
> >> released to public domain under creative commons.
> >> 4. Removed "licenses" folder
> >>
> >> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are
> available
> >> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
> >>
> >> 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 RC3 release
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 13.03.2015 04:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Checksums are ok
> Signature is ok
> rat report looks good
When I run RAT it on the release package I still see GPL license files
in ./modules (even if the code itself is no longer there), and some
other licenses that apparently aren't associated with any actual code.
The 'mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses' ignores these files, but why
are they there in the first place? I'm talking about these files:
./modules/aop/licenses/aspectj-epl-license.txt
./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt
./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt
./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
./modules/indexing/licenses/h2-epl-license.txt
./modules/scalar/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
./modules/ssh/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
./modules/tools/licenses/jodd-revised-bsd.txt
./modules/urideploy/licenses/jtidy-license.txt
./modules/visor-console/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
./modules/visor-console/licenses/jline-bsd-license.txt
./modules/visor-console/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
I'm also very confused by the license headers in org.jdk8.backport files:
/*
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
*
* This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as
* published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this
* particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided
* by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code.
*
* This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
* version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that
* accompanied this code).
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version
* 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
* Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
*
* Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
* or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any
* questions.
*/
/*
* This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public
* License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
* However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this
* file:
*
* Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
* Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
* http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
*/
I have no clue how something can be licensed under GPL2 and released to
the public domain at the same time. Is there some kind of announcement
anywhere that we can link to that makes this clear? Because as thing
stand now, if we release this, we'd be opening the ASF to legal action
from Oracle.
I think we simply don't know enough at this point. I propose we take
this question to general@incubator, maybe someone there has had
experience with similar cases.
-- Brane
> sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least now
> it is easy to validate, so issue for me.
>
> -1 however (sorry) because
>
> - top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be
> incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the archive
> and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted to the
> release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file names
> will remain the same.
>
> Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get the
> wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically.
>
> Cos
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
>>
>> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
>>
>> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
>> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
>> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
>> released to public domain under creative commons.
>> 4. Removed "licenses" folder
>>
>> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
>> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
>>
>> 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 RC3 release
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Checksums are ok
Signature is ok
rat report looks good
sha1sum file looks good, but md5sum still has a weird format. At least now
it is easy to validate, so issue for me.
-1 however (sorry) because
- top level directory is called incubator-ignite-ce2230b, should be
incubator-ignite-1.0, I believe. Also, it'd make sense to name the archive
and sum files in the same fashion. This way, once the RC is accepted to the
release all you need to do is to rename the directory but the file names
will remain the same.
Otherwise, if you rename the diretory inside of the archive, you'll get the
wrong checksums and would need to redo the Vote technically.
Cos
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 04:14PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> I have uploaded the new RC3 release candidate to:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
>
> The following changes were made based on all the feedback I got for RC2:
>
> 1. Added DISCLAIMER.txt
> 2. Added DEVNOTES.txt
> 3. Updated NOTICE.txt with section about "org.jdk8.backport" package
> released to public domain under creative commons.
> 4. Removed "licenses" folder
>
> Instructions on how to run RAT and how to build the project are available
> in DEVNOTES.txt file.
>
> 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)