You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to mapreduce-dev@hadoop.apache.org by Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> on 2020/03/03 06:04:39 UTC
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Hi Vinay
Thanx for driving the release.
Verified checksums and tried building from source.
Everything seems to be working fine.
But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
-Ayush
> On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
>
> -Vinay
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
>>
>> Please find inline replies.
>>
>> -Vinay
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
>>> hard work...
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
>>>
>>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
>>> fine
>>>
>>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
>>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
>>> tar file.
>>>
>>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied from
>> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release packages
>> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
>> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
>>
>> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
>>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
>>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
>>>
>>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create a
>> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
>>
>> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
>>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
>>>
>>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to be
>> used or not.
>>
>> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
>>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
>>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
>>>
>>
>> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
>> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting to
>> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
>> about protobuf's original license.
>> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
>> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses. Siimilar
>> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
>>
>> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
>> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
>> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact. May
>> be we need to fix this too.
>>
>> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
>>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would help
>>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
>>>
>>>
>> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
>>
>> Thanks again to work on this,
>>> Marton
>>>
>>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
>>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
>> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be cut
>> again, I am open to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
>>>>
>>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
>>> 1.0.0.
>>>>
>>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
>>>>
>>> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
>>>>
>>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>>
>>>> The RC tag in git is here:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
>>>>
>>>> And my public key is at:
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
>>>>
>>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
>>> IST.*
>>>>
>>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
>>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
>>>>
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
>>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
>>>>
>>>> My +1 to start.
>>>>
>>>> -Vinay
>>>>
>>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mapreduce-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hadoop Thirdparty 1.0.0
Posted by Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>.
Hello everyone.
RC0 has been canceled.
Since issues mentioned above are already fixed now, soon I will create RC1
and re-create VOTE thread.
Thanks for trying out RC,
-Vinay
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:41 AM Ayush Saxena <ay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Vinay
> Thanx for driving the release.
> Verified checksums and tried building from source.
> Everything seems to be working fine.
> But I feel the concerns regarding licences are valid.
> IMO we should fix them and include HADOOP-16895 too in the release
>
> -Ayush
>
> > On 29-Feb-2020, at 1:45 AM, Vinayakumar B <vi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-16895 jira created for
> > handling LICENCE and NOTICEs
> > PR also has been raised for a proposal. Please validate
> > https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/pull/6
> >
> > -Vinay
> >
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:48 PM Vinayakumar B <vinayakumarb@apache.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Elek for detailed verification.
> >>
> >> Please find inline replies.
> >>
> >> -Vinay
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 7:49 PM Elek, Marton <el...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thank you very much to work on this release Vinay, 1.0.0 is always a
> >>> hard work...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. I downloaded it and I can build it from the source
> >>>
> >>> 2. Checked the signature and the sha512 of the src package and they are
> >>> fine
> >>>
> >>> 3. Yetus seems to be included in the source package. I am not sure if
> >>> it's intentional but I would remove the patchprocess directory from the
> >>> tar file.
> >>>
> >>> Since dev-support/create-release script and assembly file is copied
> from
> >> hadoop-repo, I can find this issue exits in hadoop source release
> packages
> >> as well. ex: I checked 3.1.2 and 2.10 src packages.
> >> I will raise a Jira and fix this for both hadoop and thirdparty.
> >>
> >> 4. NOTICE.txt seems to be outdated (I am not sure, but I think the
> >>> Export Notice is unnecessary, especially for the source release, also
> >>> the note about the bouncycastle and Yarn server is unnecessary).
> >>>
> >>> Again, NOTICE.txt was copied from Hadoop and kept as is. I will create
> a
> >> jira to decide about NOTICE and LICENSEs
> >>
> >> 5. NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary seems to be unused (and they contain
> >>> unrelated entries, especially the NOTICE). IMHO
> >>>
> >>> We can decide in the Jira whether NOTICE-binary and LICENSE-binary to
> be
> >> used or not.
> >>
> >> 6. As far as I understand the binary release in this case is the maven
> >>> artifact. IANAL but the original protobuf license seems to be missing
> >>> from "unzip -p hadoop-shaded-protobuf_3_7-1.0.0.jar
> META-INF/LICENSE.txt"
> >>>
> >>
> >> I observed that there is one more file "META-INF/DEPENDENCIES" generated
> >> by shade plugin, which have reference to shaded artifacts and poniting
> to
> >> link of the original artifact LICENSE. I think this should be sufficient
> >> about protobuf's original license.
> >> IMO, "META-INF/LICENSE.txt" should point to current project's LICENSE,
> >> which in-turn can have contents/pointers of dependents' licenses.
> Siimilar
> >> approach followed in hadoop-shaded-client jars.
> >>
> >> hadoop's artifacts also will be uploaded to maven repo during release,
> >> which doesnot carry all LICENSE files in artifacts. It just says "See
> >> licenses/ for text of these licenses" which doesnot exist in artifact.
> May
> >> be we need to fix this too.
> >>
> >> 7. Minor nit: I would suggest to use only the filename in the sha512
> >>> files (instead of having the /build/source/target prefix). It would
> help
> >>> to use `sha512 -c` command to validate the checksum.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Again, this is from create-release script. will update the script.
> >>
> >> Thanks again to work on this,
> >>> Marton
> >>>
> >>> ps: I am not experienced with licensing enough to judge which one of
> >>> these are blocking and I might be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> IMO, none of these should be blocking and can be handled before next
> >> release. Still if someone feels this should be fixed and RC should be
> cut
> >> again, I am open to it.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 2/25/20 8:17 PM, Vinayakumar B wrote:
> >>>> Hi folks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks to everyone's help on this release.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have created a release candidate (RC0) for Apache Hadoop Thirdparty
> >>> 1.0.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> RC Release artifacts are available at :
> >>>>
> >>>
> http://home.apache.org/~vinayakumarb/release/hadoop-thirdparty-1.0.0-RC0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Maven artifacts are available in staging repo:
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>>
> >>>> The RC tag in git is here:
> >>>> https://github.com/apache/hadoop-thirdparty/tree/release-1.0.0-RC0
> >>>>
> >>>> And my public key is at:
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/hadoop/common/KEYS
> >>>>
> >>>> *This vote will run for 5 days, ending on March 1st 2020 at 11:59 pm
> >>> IST.*
> >>>>
> >>>> For the testing, I have verified Hadoop trunk compilation with
> >>>> "-DdistMgmtSnapshotsUrl=
> >>>>
> >>>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachehadoop-1258/
> >>>> -Dhadoop-thirdparty-protobuf.version=1.0.0"
> >>>>
> >>>> My +1 to start.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Vinay
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: yarn-dev-unsubscribe@hadoop.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: yarn-dev-help@hadoop.apache.org
>
>