You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> on 2016/07/26 17:31:02 UTC
[VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Hi IPMC,
The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed.
We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community.
The PPMC vote thread is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E
*This release fixes the following issues:*
Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball only
release.
Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0.0-incubating>
*We're voting upon the release branch:*
2.0.0.0-incubating
HEAD: commit
<https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=9bdad43ebbbcefce23db193c3a7dd62ea6a3d805>
*Source Files:*
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0.0-incubating.RC2
*KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
**** Please download and evaluate the release candidate build *** *(in IP,
license, RAT check, etc.)
The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number of
votes
Please vote:
[ ] +1 Release this tarball
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release as ...
Thanks
-Goden
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> However, do you think that'd be a release blocker if we just have a link
> not full content in the source tarsal?
No it’s a very minor issue. I listed what I considered release blockers in my vote email next to the -1 vote.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
Thanks for the clarification. I've filed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-960 to track this.
However, do you think that'd be a release blocker if we just have a link
not full content in the source tarball?
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:19 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Do you mean this should be put in VOTE email?
>
> I expected it in BUILD_INSTRUCTIONS.md but it just contains a link to the
> wiki page, but anywhere in the release is fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Do you mean this should be put in VOTE email?
I expected it in BUILD_INSTRUCTIONS.md but it just contains a link to the wiki page, but anywhere in the release is fine.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
the JIRA was drafted in such a way according to original feedback. I don't
know what's the best way , will check with our project mentors for that.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c
> > <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/2.0.0.0-incubating/src/port/glob.c
> >
> > was not referred in your previous email anywhere. But given the
> > context, I think it fits in your comments about [28]-[33] and [35],
> let me
> > know if I'm wrong.
>
> Correct that should of originally been [28]-[34].
>
> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 (for merging
> > copyright/NOTICE file, based on Justin and Alan's feedback) - it's
> arguable
> > what's the right way, may need more guidance.
>
> Why do you you think that all copyright notices need to go in NOTICE?
> Given there 30 or more that are not listed in the there what makes these
> copyrights special?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.
the JIRA was drafted in such a way according to original feedback. I don't
know what's the best way , will check with our project mentors for that.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c
> > <
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/2.0.0.0-incubating/src/port/glob.c
> >
> > was not referred in your previous email anywhere. But given the
> > context, I think it fits in your comments about [28]-[33] and [35],
> let me
> > know if I'm wrong.
>
> Correct that should of originally been [28]-[34].
>
> > - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 (for merging
> > copyright/NOTICE file, based on Justin and Alan's feedback) - it's
> arguable
> > what's the right way, may need more guidance.
>
> Why do you you think that all copyright notices need to go in NOTICE?
> Given there 30 or more that are not listed in the there what makes these
> copyrights special?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> @Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c
> <https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/2.0.0.0-incubating/src/port/glob.c>
> was not referred in your previous email anywhere. But given the
> context, I think it fits in your comments about [28]-[33] and [35], let me
> know if I'm wrong.
Correct that should of originally been [28]-[34].
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 (for merging
> copyright/NOTICE file, based on Justin and Alan's feedback) - it's arguable
> what's the right way, may need more guidance.
Why do you you think that all copyright notices need to go in NOTICE? Given there 30 or more that are not listed in the there what makes these copyrights special?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
A quick update:
I've filed
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958 (for all license issues
in Justin's email)
@Justin - I've checked all [1]-[57] reference. [34] ./src/port/glob.c
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/2.0.0.0-incubating/src/port/glob.c>
was not referred in your previous email anywhere. But given the
context, I think it fits in your comments about [28]-[33] and [35], let me
know if I'm wrong.
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-957 (for NOTICE cleanup
based on Justin's email)
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 (for merging
copyright/NOTICE file, based on Justin and Alan's feedback) - it's arguable
what's the right way, may need more guidance.
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-959 (for unexpected Bianry
files based on RAT reports)
- *Pending Question*: For Justin - should I attach a build instruction
text file in the future VOTE email
- *Pending Question*: for @John D. Ament - regarding file naming
contradicts license claim.
Thanks
-Goden
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 2:19 PM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Justin - for this comment:
>
> I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
> than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
> how do I know how to build this release?
>
> We have a wikipage:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Build+and+Install , it
> contains a lot of content (and you're right it might get updated often).
>
> Do you mean this should be put in VOTE email? or I can make a txt file (as
> snapshot for the moment) and attach it with the VOTE email next time.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:10 AM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Justin for your detailed and thorough analysis - I'll bring this
>> back to the community and address the items listed one by one.
>> Meanwhile, please let us know if you see any other issues so we can solve
>> them together in the next Release Candidate.
>>
>> Appreciate your effort.
>> -Goden
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF
>>> header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of
>>> GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release
>>> (BSD with ad clause).
>>>
>>> This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things
>>> due to the large amount of noise.
>>>
>>> I checked:
>>> - release contains incubating
>>> - signatures and hashes good
>>> - I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it
>>> has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t
>>> not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source
>>> files. [1]
>>> - NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I
>>> would expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who
>>> donated the software and who copyright statements were removed from the
>>> original files.
>>> - LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
>>> - Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in
>>> LICENSE
>>> - Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be
>>> others given rat reports 770+ binary files
>>> - Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the
>>> large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
>>> - Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
>>>
>>> License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
>>> - BSD licensed code [3]
>>> - BSD license code [7]
>>> - license for this file [9]
>>> - license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
>>> - MIT license PSI [11]
>>> - BSD licensed code [12]
>>> - BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
>>> - BSD licensed code [15][16]
>>> - license for this file [17]
>>> - license of these files [18][19]
>>> - license of this file [20]
>>> - regex license [21]
>>> - How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation
>>> GmbH
>>> - How is this file licensed? [23]
>>> - BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an
>>> export license?
>>> - pgdump [25]
>>> - license for this file [26]
>>> - license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been
>>> incorrectly added to this.
>>> - This BSD licensed file [36]
>>> - license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
>>> - This BSD licensed file [40]
>>> - This BSD licensed file [41]
>>> - BSD licensed pychecker [42]
>>> - licenses for all of these files [43]
>>> - BSD license pg800 [44]
>>> - how is this file licensed? [45]
>>> - license for this file [47]
>>> - Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable
>>> license?
>>> - How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and
>>> missing headers.
>>> - BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF
>>> headers applied.
>>> - This BSD licensed file [51]
>>> - This public domain style sheet [52]
>>> - This file [53]
>>> - License for unit test2 [54]
>>> - MIT licensed lock file [55]
>>> - JSON code here [56]
>>> - License for this file [57]
>>>
>>> And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would
>>> likely take many many hours.
>>>
>>> Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the
>>> release.
>>>
>>> This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it.
>>> Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
>>>
>>> Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not
>>> compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be
>>> that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that
>>> needs to be checked.
>>>
>>> I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
>>> than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
>>> how do I know how to build this release?
>>>
>>> Also some one owes me a beer!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
>>> 2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
>>> 3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
>>> 4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
>>> 5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
>>> 6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
>>> 7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
>>> 8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
>>> 9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
>>> 10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
>>> 11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
>>> 12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
>>> 13 ./src/port/crypt.c
>>> 14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
>>> 15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
>>> 16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
>>> 17. ./src/port/rand.c
>>> 18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
>>> 19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
>>> 20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
>>> 21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
>>> 22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
>>> 23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
>>> 24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
>>> 25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
>>> 26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
>>> 27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
>>> 28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
>>> 29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
>>> 30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
>>> 31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
>>> 32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
>>> 33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
>>> 34. ./src/port/glob.c
>>> 35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
>>> 36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
>>> 37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
>>> 38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
>>> 39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
>>> 40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
>>> 41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
>>> 42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
>>> 43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
>>> 44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
>>> 45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
>>> 46.
>>> ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
>>> 47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
>>> 48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
>>> 49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
>>> 50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
>>> 51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
>>> 52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
>>> 53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
>>> 54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
>>> 55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
>>> 56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
>>> 57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
Hi Justin - for this comment:
I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather than
a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future how do
I know how to build this release?
We have a wikipage:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/Build+and+Install , it
contains a lot of content (and you're right it might get updated often).
Do you mean this should be put in VOTE email? or I can make a txt file (as
snapshot for the moment) and attach it with the VOTE email next time.
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:10 AM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Justin for your detailed and thorough analysis - I'll bring this
> back to the community and address the items listed one by one.
> Meanwhile, please let us know if you see any other issues so we can solve
> them together in the next Release Candidate.
>
> Appreciate your effort.
> -Goden
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF
>> header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of
>> GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release
>> (BSD with ad clause).
>>
>> This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things
>> due to the large amount of noise.
>>
>> I checked:
>> - release contains incubating
>> - signatures and hashes good
>> - I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it
>> has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t
>> not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source
>> files. [1]
>> - NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would
>> expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who donated
>> the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original
>> files.
>> - LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
>> - Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in
>> LICENSE
>> - Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be
>> others given rat reports 770+ binary files
>> - Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the
>> large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
>> - Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
>>
>> License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
>> - BSD licensed code [3]
>> - BSD license code [7]
>> - license for this file [9]
>> - license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
>> - MIT license PSI [11]
>> - BSD licensed code [12]
>> - BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
>> - BSD licensed code [15][16]
>> - license for this file [17]
>> - license of these files [18][19]
>> - license of this file [20]
>> - regex license [21]
>> - How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation
>> GmbH
>> - How is this file licensed? [23]
>> - BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an
>> export license?
>> - pgdump [25]
>> - license for this file [26]
>> - license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been
>> incorrectly added to this.
>> - This BSD licensed file [36]
>> - license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
>> - This BSD licensed file [40]
>> - This BSD licensed file [41]
>> - BSD licensed pychecker [42]
>> - licenses for all of these files [43]
>> - BSD license pg800 [44]
>> - how is this file licensed? [45]
>> - license for this file [47]
>> - Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable license?
>> - How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and
>> missing headers.
>> - BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF
>> headers applied.
>> - This BSD licensed file [51]
>> - This public domain style sheet [52]
>> - This file [53]
>> - License for unit test2 [54]
>> - MIT licensed lock file [55]
>> - JSON code here [56]
>> - License for this file [57]
>>
>> And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would
>> likely take many many hours.
>>
>> Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the
>> release.
>>
>> This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it.
>> Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
>>
>> Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not
>> compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be
>> that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that
>> needs to be checked.
>>
>> I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
>> than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
>> how do I know how to build this release?
>>
>> Also some one owes me a beer!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
>> 2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
>> 3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
>> 4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
>> 5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
>> 6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
>> 7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
>> 8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
>> 9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
>> 10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
>> 11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
>> 12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
>> 13 ./src/port/crypt.c
>> 14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
>> 15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
>> 16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
>> 17. ./src/port/rand.c
>> 18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
>> 19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
>> 20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
>> 21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
>> 22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
>> 23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
>> 24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
>> 25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
>> 26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
>> 27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
>> 28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
>> 29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
>> 30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
>> 31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
>> 32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
>> 33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
>> 34. ./src/port/glob.c
>> 35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
>> 36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
>> 37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
>> 38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
>> 39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
>> 40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
>> 41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
>> 42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
>> 43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
>> 44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
>> 45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
>> 46.
>> ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
>> 47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
>> 48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
>> 49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
>> 50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
>> 51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
>> 52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
>> 53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
>> 54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
>> 55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
>> 56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
>> 57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
Thanks Justin for your detailed and thorough analysis - I'll bring this
back to the community and address the items listed one by one.
Meanwhile, please let us know if you see any other issues so we can solve
them together in the next Release Candidate.
Appreciate your effort.
-Goden
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF
> header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of
> GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release
> (BSD with ad clause).
>
> This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things due
> to the large amount of noise.
>
> I checked:
> - release contains incubating
> - signatures and hashes good
> - I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it
> has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t
> not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source
> files. [1]
> - NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would
> expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who donated
> the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original
> files.
> - LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
> - Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in
> LICENSE
> - Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be
> others given rat reports 770+ binary files
> - Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the
> large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
> - Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
>
> License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
> - BSD licensed code [3]
> - BSD license code [7]
> - license for this file [9]
> - license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
> - MIT license PSI [11]
> - BSD licensed code [12]
> - BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
> - BSD licensed code [15][16]
> - license for this file [17]
> - license of these files [18][19]
> - license of this file [20]
> - regex license [21]
> - How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation GmbH
> - How is this file licensed? [23]
> - BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an
> export license?
> - pgdump [25]
> - license for this file [26]
> - license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been
> incorrectly added to this.
> - This BSD licensed file [36]
> - license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
> - This BSD licensed file [40]
> - This BSD licensed file [41]
> - BSD licensed pychecker [42]
> - licenses for all of these files [43]
> - BSD license pg800 [44]
> - how is this file licensed? [45]
> - license for this file [47]
> - Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable license?
> - How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and
> missing headers.
> - BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF
> headers applied.
> - This BSD licensed file [51]
> - This public domain style sheet [52]
> - This file [53]
> - License for unit test2 [54]
> - MIT licensed lock file [55]
> - JSON code here [56]
> - License for this file [57]
>
> And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would
> likely take many many hours.
>
> Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the release.
>
> This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it.
> Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
>
> Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not
> compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be
> that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that
> needs to be checked.
>
> I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
> than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
> how do I know how to build this release?
>
> Also some one owes me a beer!
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> 2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
> 3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> 4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
> 5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
> 6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
> 7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
> 8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
> 9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
> 10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
> 11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
> 12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
> 13 ./src/port/crypt.c
> 14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
> 15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
> 16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
> 17. ./src/port/rand.c
> 18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
> 19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
> 20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
> 21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
> 22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
> 23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
> 24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
> 25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
> 26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
> 27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
> 28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
> 29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
> 30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
> 31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
> 32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
> 33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
> 34. ./src/port/glob.c
> 35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
> 36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
> 37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
> 38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
> 39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
> 40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
> 41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> 42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
> 43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
> 44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
> 45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
> 46.
> ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
> 47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
> 48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
> 49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
> 50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
> 51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
> 52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
> 53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
> 54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
> 55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
> 56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
> 57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Well, I don't think there's ever a 100% assurance in IP matters,
> but... here's what
> we know AND here's what we would like to advertise to the consumers of HAWQ:
> A certain set of file (how we advertise the filenames is TBD, but
> likely in LICENSE)...
> 1. ...came from PostgreSQL project version 8. With 8.1.0 being a
> bulk of the import, but
> with a few files that came from older PG releases
>
> 2. ...may have been initially released under whatever license, but
> then were made
> available by the PostgreSQL project under the PostgreSQL license
> (which is a BSD
> derivative and compatible with ALv2)
>
> 3. ...to the best of our software archeology analysis we can trust
> PostgreSQL community
> on the statement in #2
I think that fine approach. This is one issue here the license in 2 may not be Apache compatible. For example I come across a MIT licensed package the other week that contained GPL licensed files inside it.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something
>>> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that
>
> Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear?
No. All of the above is clear: it came from PG, we didn't modify it
and we'd like to keep it
that way.
> Does the files version control history tell you anything?
No. And that's an additional reason I'd prefer to vector anyone doing
software archeology
back to the real source control -- the one of PG project.
> I know in some cases here we’re dealing
> with files 10+ years old so that may be difficult. Perhaps list all files somewhere that you are unsure
> of but likely to be Apache or other compatible license?
Well, I don't think there's ever a 100% assurance in IP matters,
but... here's what
we know AND here's what we would like to advertise to the consumers of HAWQ:
A certain set of file (how we advertise the filenames is TBD, but
likely in LICENSE)...
1. ...came from PostgreSQL project version 8. With 8.1.0 being a
bulk of the import, but
with a few files that came from older PG releases
2. ...may have been initially released under whatever license, but
then were made
available by the PostgreSQL project under the PostgreSQL license
(which is a BSD
derivative and compatible with ALv2)
3. ...to the best of our software archeology analysis we can trust
PostgreSQL community
on the statement in #2
That's our intent which I think is relatively problem free, so the
only question is
can we express this intent in the best possible way.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
>> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something
>> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that
Perhaps ask yourself why that is? Is it because the licensing/copyright/provenance is unclear? Does the files version control history tell you anything? I know in some cases here we’re dealing with files 10+ years old so that may be difficult. Perhaps list all files somewhere that you are unsure of but likely to be Apache or other compatible license? Issue like this if noted don;t have to be sorted out for the next release just before graduation.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Mike Jumper <mi...@guac-dev.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>>> source code.
>>
>> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software?
>>
>>> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header there on my own.
>>
>> Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way.
>>
>>> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that they
>>> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
>>
>> The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not know how that file is licensed it may be ALv2 or it may be something else. Just as it has different copyright owner it also likely is under a different license, whose terms are very likely to be APv2 compatible, but may not be.
>>
>
> I'd also like to point out, from the PostgreSQL license (emphasis added):
>
> "... Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
> its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
> agreement is hereby granted, **provided that the above copyright
> notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in
> all copies**. ..."
>
> Regardless of how uncomfortable it may be to modify that file and add
> legal boilerplate, the project in question would be violating the
> PostgreSQL license if it does not somehow include the copyright notice
> and paragraphs along with the copied portions.
>
> If it is absolutely known that the file is indeed under the PostgreSQL
> license, I'd think the best thing would be to add it and thus comply.
> If, on the other hand, the license of that file truly *isn't* known,
> then its inclusion in any project is dangerous.
The way we're currently proposing to handle this is to add a section to
Apache HAWQ's (incubating) license file stating the text of the PG license
and listing (explicitly) all the files that are covered by it in our source code
tree.
Very similar to how, for example, a recently graduated project Kudu is
handling it:
https://github.com/apache/kudu/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
If you feel that this is a problem... well then ASF has a much bigger
problem on its hands than a HAWQ release. I can name a lot of projects
that only do the attribution of unmodified 3d party licensing in the LICENSE
file and not at the level of individual file's headers.
> Perhaps the upstream project could be persuaded to add the appropriate
> boilerplate themselves, and thus resolve this once and for all?
That's highly unlikely.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Mike Jumper <mi...@guac-dev.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>> source code.
>
> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software?
>
>> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header there on my own.
>
> Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way.
>
>> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that they
>> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
>
> The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not know how that file is licensed it may be ALv2 or it may be something else. Just as it has different copyright owner it also likely is under a different license, whose terms are very likely to be APv2 compatible, but may not be.
>
I'd also like to point out, from the PostgreSQL license (emphasis added):
"... Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
agreement is hereby granted, **provided that the above copyright
notice and this paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in
all copies**. ..."
Regardless of how uncomfortable it may be to modify that file and add
legal boilerplate, the project in question would be violating the
PostgreSQL license if it does not somehow include the copyright notice
and paragraphs along with the copied portions.
If it is absolutely known that the file is indeed under the PostgreSQL
license, I'd think the best thing would be to add it and thus comply.
If, on the other hand, the license of that file truly *isn't* known,
then its inclusion in any project is dangerous.
Perhaps the upstream project could be persuaded to add the appropriate
boilerplate themselves, and thus resolve this once and for all?
- Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
One of my concerns was that the code may be a port of something under a different license (given the directory naming). For example there’s QNX FS code in Linux which is GPL licensed. [3] (date seem to be about 2.2) However I think it may be a port to get the software to run on QNX4 and written from scratch [1]. But I’m not certain where exactly the code may of come from. 1999 predates ALv2 and at the time postgres 6.5 wasn’t licensed under APv2 but was free [2]. We’re talking 20 years ago!
There's probably an alternative simpler solution if you prefer. Do you need to support QNX4 file system? If not remove the files.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://grokbase.com/t/postgresql/pgsql-ports/99cfhywfjm/qnx4-port
2. https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL6_5_PATCHES/COPYRIGHT
3. http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/ipc/shm.c?v=2.2.26
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c
>
> I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of
> the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same
> paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come from? I think that's what Justin
> is asking.
As I mentioned in my original reply to Justin, you should be looking at 8.1.0
version of PG:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL8_1_0/src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
Once again, we know for a fact that ALL of these files that we're discussing
came from PG (older versions, but still). There's a different set of files that
Justin identified that didn't come from PG. Those are not part of this
discussion.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
To be concrete: up thread was mention of shm.c
I found two shm.c files in the HAWQ repo. It says it came in as part of
the SGA. I looked in PostGreSQL's repo, but didn't find shm.c in the same
paths. So where did HAWQ's shm.c come from? I think that's what Justin
is asking.
On 8/9/16, 4:32 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an
>>MIT
>> source code.
>
>That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL
>or CDDL licensed software?
>
>> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed
>>header there on my own.
>
>Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way.
>
>> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW
>>that they
>> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
>
>The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t
>not know how that file is licensed it may be ALv2 or it may be something
>else. Just as it has different copyright owner it also likely is under a
>different license, whose terms are very likely to be APv2 compatible, but
>may not be.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
>> source code.
>
> That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software?
There's NO WAY that could be the case for the files we're discussing.
We know that. Other
files that your scan identified is not part of this discussion. This
discussion is about properly
importing unmodified 3d party code originally available under
PostgreSQL license.
I can not see how a project available under PostgreSQL license could
legally include GPL code
for example, so this particular point in context of this particular
discussion is moot. Lets move on.
>> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header there on my own.
>
> Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way.
Good. We agree then.
>> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that they
>> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
>
> The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not know how that file is licensed it may
> be ALv2 or it may be something else.
Correct. All I know is that it is an ALv2 compatible license.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
> source code.
That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or CDDL licensed software?
> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header there on my own.
Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way.
> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that they
> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not know how that file is licensed it may be ALv2 or it may be something else. Just as it has different copyright owner it also likely is under a different license, whose terms are very likely to be APv2 compatible, but may not be.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the
>> policy, the answer is simple.
>> Quote:
>> "3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
>> third-party source files.”
>
> In the case when they are not actually ALv2 licensed. It assumed that any files that is APLv2 license would already have a APLv2 header.
Well they are not. They are available under the PostgreSQL license overall
and *may* have originated under a different (but still very much compatible
with ALv2 -- so no alarm bells ;-)) license.
>> Because I actually don't know what the original license on the file is.
>
> That should ring alarm bells.
Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT
source code. MIT is a compatible license. Whether the fact that the code
was originally licensed under MIT is reflected in the header of that
*particular*
file is an open question. That's why I don't feel comfortable putting
the overall
PG licensed header there on my own. It may not be, strictly speaking illegal,
but it makes me uncomfortable. And since the NOT putting it there has no
downside (aside from making scanning a bit more complex) I'd prefer for the
file to remain unmodified.
>> IOW, I can't add ALv2 header because of #3 on the policy
>
> No you can’t add ALv2 because you don’t know that the file is licensed under ALv2.
I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that they
are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license.
> Given the age of some of the files (predating when ALv2 was created) it’s very likely that they are not.
Again, no reason to speculate -- we do KNOW what the overall license on
these files are -- that is PostgreSQL license. We may not know what the original
license on each individual file was, but we do know that it was compatible
with the PostgreSQL license.
>> I think documenting it in LICENSE should be enough, no?
>
> Yep that’s one one of doing it. Again I don’t thing everything has to be solved for the next release,
> but documenting the issues/what may be missing is probably the best way to go.
Sounds good!
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the
> policy, the answer is simple.
> Quote:
> "3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
> third-party source files.”
In the case when they are not actually ALv2 licensed. It assumed that any files that is APLv2 license would already have a APLv2 header.
> Because I actually don't know what the original license on the file is.
That should ring alarm bells.
> IOW, I can't add ALv2 header because of #3 on the policy
No you can’t add ALv2 because you don’t know that the file is licensed under ALv2. Given the age of some of the files (predating when ALv2 was created) it’s very likely that they are not.
> I think documenting it in LICENSE should be enough, no?
Yep that’s one one of doing it. Again I don’t thing everything has to be solved for the next release, but documenting the issues/what may be missing is probably the best way to go.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the
>> current stated policy
>> on unmodified 3d party:
>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
>
> Why exactly is that against policy?
If you're asking why adding ALv2 header is against the letter of the
policy, the answer is simple.
Quote:
"3. Do not add the standard Apache License header to the top of
third-party source files."
If you're asking why it is against the spirit of the policy -- I've
just forked off a tread
to discuss that.
However, as it stands, I suggest that for the upcoming HAWQ 2.0.0.0 RC we just
to the letter of the policy. We can always, later, slap a whole bunch
of AL headers on
files that we're going to innumerate anyway.
Now, if you're asking why can't we add a non-ALv2 header to the file,
see bellow:
> You are adding a header to make clear what the license of that file is.
Because I actually don't know what the original license on the file
is. All I know
is that it is compatible with PostgreSQL license. IOW, I can't add ALv2 header
because of #3 on the policy and I can't really add any kind of a
different header
since that may not necessarily be correct *at the individual file level*.
> That not a modification or removal of the license (point 1) it’s just documentation.
I think documenting it in LICENSE should be enough, no?
> I would note that point 2 states "Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license,
> even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download site into the distribution”,
> so in that case if you don’t add the header you would not be complying with that policy, unless the full
> license text is placed somewhere else in the release.
Which it will be (of course, unfortunately, it won't really help you
with RAT scans unless you're willing
to trust our exclusion list).
All I'm saying is that I'm uncomfortable adding headers to an
unmodified 3d party work.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the
> current stated policy
> on unmodified 3d party:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Why exactly is that against policy? You are adding a header to make clear what the license of that file is. That not a modification or removal of the license (point 1) it’s just documentation. I would note that point 2 states "Do ensure that every third-party work includes its associated license, even if that requires adding a copy of the license from the third-party download site into the distribution”, so in that case if you don’t add the header you would not be complying with that policy, unless the full license text is placed somewhere else in the release.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of
>> Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified upstream code that Kudu
>> settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z
>
> And the result of that is that it almost impossible to review any Kudu releases without a direct file by file comparison to the previous release. File headers make everyones life easier.
Sure, but mu point is: since I'm not comfortable going against the
current stated policy
on unmodified 3d party:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
we'll have to track a whole bunch of file names somehow anyway.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of
> Kudu, and I’d like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified upstream code that Kudu
> settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z
And the result of that is that it almost impossible to review any Kudu releases without a direct file by file comparison to the previous release. File headers make everyones life easier.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/9/16, 3:10 PM, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the
>> headers is not an option.
>
>Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they
>were originally under?
IANAL, but in my mind, yes. The header is just a convenience. It isn't a
legal requirement. Not having a header doesn't change the licensing of
the lines in the file. Having 3rd party files in our repos or a release
package is just a convenience to avoid having to download them separately,
so I wouldn't make them different from the the "original". As long as the
LICENSE file mentions that there are files not under ASF control that
should be sufficient for a release. I wouldn't hold up a release for
missing headers on 3rd party files.
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the
> headers is not an option.
Even when the files are missing header or missing the license that they were originally under?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/9/16, 1:46 PM, "shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
<shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
>> <shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to
>>>>>mark
>>>>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could
>>>>>look weir enough.
>>>>
>>>> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
>>>
>>>For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable
>>>changes
>>>to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as
>>>well fit in that
>>>category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid
>>>modifying the headers.
>>
>> Did the code owners (original authors of these files) actually sign an
>>SGA
>> to donate these files to Apache?
>
>No. I though it was implicit in my original email, but thanks for
>calling attention to it.
AIUI, if it is 3rd party and otherwise unmodified, modification of the
headers is not an option.
>
>> If not, these files are technically not
>> part of a code donation and should be treated as you would any 3rd party
>> code. AIUI, you can't grant code you don't own, even if it was
>> accidentally included in an SGA.
>
>Correct for the pristine, unmodified sources. For source originally
>coming from PG
>where Pivotal (and companies prior to it) added/modified to it the
>line get blurry.
>
>Personally, I feel like those types of files definitely need to be
>included in the SGA.
>After all, Pivotal did own the modifications on top of the pristine PG
>source and it is
>important for the company to explicitly signal donation of that code.
AIUI, files containing IP owned by the SGA signors should be listed in the
SGA. It is helpful to have clear documentation in the files and LICENSE
as to what is under ASF control and what is 3rd party. I think some folks
use two headers (ASF then original), but I haven't seen that as required.
Sure, non-standard headers makes RAT checking harder, but IMO if the
LICENSE provides sufficient warning that you might find 3rd party code in
certain locations that should be good enough.
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
> On Aug 9, 2016, at 4:46 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I feel like those types of files definitely need to be
> included in the SGA.
> After all, Pivotal did own the modifications on top of the pristine PG
> source and it is
> important for the company to explicitly signal donation of that code.
>
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
> <shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>>wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>>>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could
>>>>look weir enough.
>>>
>>> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
>>
>>For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable
>>changes
>>to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as
>>well fit in that
>>category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid
>>modifying the headers.
>
> Did the code owners (original authors of these files) actually sign an SGA
> to donate these files to Apache?
No. I though it was implicit in my original email, but thanks for
calling attention to it.
> If not, these files are technically not
> part of a code donation and should be treated as you would any 3rd party
> code. AIUI, you can't grant code you don't own, even if it was
> accidentally included in an SGA.
Correct for the pristine, unmodified sources. For source originally
coming from PG
where Pivotal (and companies prior to it) added/modified to it the
line get blurry.
Personally, I feel like those types of files definitely need to be
included in the SGA.
After all, Pivotal did own the modifications on top of the pristine PG
source and it is
important for the company to explicitly signal donation of that code.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 8/9/16, 1:27 PM, "shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of Roman Shaposhnik"
<shaposhnik@gmail.com on behalf of roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could
>>>look weir enough.
>>
>> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
>
>For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable
>changes
>to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as
>well fit in that
>category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid
>modifying the headers.
Did the code owners (original authors of these files) actually sign an SGA
to donate these files to Apache? If not, these files are technically not
part of a code donation and should be treated as you would any 3rd party
code. AIUI, you can't grant code you don't own, even if it was
accidentally included in an SGA.
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir enough.
>
> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable changes
to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as
well fit in that
category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid
modifying the headers.
If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of
Kudu, and I'd
like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified upstream code that Kudu
settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z
If you feel like HAWQ's case is somehow different from Kudu -- I'd love to know
more.
> The issue with rat exclusions is that I find they tend to be made too wide and than at some point fail to capture something important.
Agreed and if you can advise us on how to make sure that
we tag certain files as coming 100% verbatim from PG in a very
visible way -- I'd be more than happy to do that. For now, the only
place I can see for doing that is LICENSE with a full list of file names
(without any kind of wildcards). This will make LICENSE somewhat big,
but I think it should be ok.
Will this work?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir enough.
Would’t be better to fix/add the headers? That way the licensing of any file would be clear and anyone editing those feel in the future is likely to know where they come from and how thy are licensed. Also make things a lot easier to review in the future.
The issue with rat exclusions is that I find they tend to be made too wide and than at some point fail to capture something important.
> and thus we ask folks to run rat as:
> $ mvn verify
I generally run rat manually without exclusions which is probably why I notice things a little more often.
> if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license header on something
> like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that
If that's how it is licensed then it should have an ALv2 licence header that’s ASF policy? The only issue I would have is if ALv2 headers are added to files that are not licensed in that way, so yes some care needs to be taken.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Hi Justin!
sorry for a belated reply -- I was on a glorious 2.5 vacation with a
total disconnect from
my email/etc (I have to admit I did Tweet a bit, but only when it came
to non-software
related things like politics or beer). And speaking of beer -- we
really owe you a big one.
I hope you're coming to ApacheCON EU!
Now, I see that HAWQ community captured the majority of your feedback with some
pretty good JIRAs (which are currently blockers for 2.0.0.0) release.
What I wanted to
do, though, is to provide some additional context so that two of us
(and the rest of the IPMC)
can be on the same page wrt. where HAWQ is coming from.
What makes HAWQ code base unique among Incubating projects is that it
contains a lot of
source code (lifted verbatim) from PostgreSQL and Greenplum Database
(the former licensed
under the BSD-derivated license and the later under the ALv2). Not a
problem in principle,
but a source of great many questions for which there's not a huge
amount of prior art in the
incubator. By the way, as an aside, I must say that given your
analysis even the inclusion
of an ASF project source code (thrift) proved to be problematic, let
alone inclusion of non-ASF
code.
This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
the files that came
from PG even though their license headers could look weir enough. E.g.
your [22] example
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/2.0.0.0-incubating/src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
It is true that the license header doesn't really tell you what the
license is, but since it came
from the PG 8.1.0 release:
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/REL8_1_0/src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
we are trusting the upstream that it is available under the
BSD-derived PG license.
We're currently maintaining the exclusion list via the pom.xml:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/blob/2.0.0.0-incubating/pom.xml#L82
and thus we ask folks to run rat as:
$ mvn verify
Now, if you think we should have a more precise exclusion list (e.g.
get rid of globbing and
list individual files) I'd be comfortable with that (although it will
make the pom.xml quite
large) but if you're saying that we need to slap an ALv2 license
header on something
like shm.c -- I don't feel comfortable doing that. I remember a few
discussion in the past
where this was a recommended position on foreign code coming into ASF.
A recent example
of Kudu, also confirms that. E.g. content of:
https://github.com/apache/kudu/tree/master/src/kudu/gutil
So I think that the path forward here is to clarify licensing
(especially things like 4 clause BSD license)
but still not touch the original files. Would you agree?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release (BSD with ad clause).
>
> This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things due to the large amount of noise.
>
> I checked:
> - release contains incubating
> - signatures and hashes good
> - I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source files. [1]
> - NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who donated the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original files.
> - LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
> - Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in LICENSE
> - Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be others given rat reports 770+ binary files
> - Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
> - Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
>
> License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
> - BSD licensed code [3]
> - BSD license code [7]
> - license for this file [9]
> - license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
> - MIT license PSI [11]
> - BSD licensed code [12]
> - BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
> - BSD licensed code [15][16]
> - license for this file [17]
> - license of these files [18][19]
> - license of this file [20]
> - regex license [21]
> - How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation GmbH
> - How is this file licensed? [23]
> - BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an export license?
> - pgdump [25]
> - license for this file [26]
> - license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been incorrectly added to this.
> - This BSD licensed file [36]
> - license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
> - This BSD licensed file [40]
> - This BSD licensed file [41]
> - BSD licensed pychecker [42]
> - licenses for all of these files [43]
> - BSD license pg800 [44]
> - how is this file licensed? [45]
> - license for this file [47]
> - Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable license?
> - How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and missing headers.
> - BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF headers applied.
> - This BSD licensed file [51]
> - This public domain style sheet [52]
> - This file [53]
> - License for unit test2 [54]
> - MIT licensed lock file [55]
> - JSON code here [56]
> - License for this file [57]
>
> And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would likely take many many hours.
>
> Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the release.
>
> This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it. Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
>
> Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that needs to be checked.
>
> I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future how do I know how to build this release?
>
> Also some one owes me a beer!
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> 2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
> 3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> 4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
> 5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
> 6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
> 7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
> 8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
> 9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
> 10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
> 11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
> 12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
> 13 ./src/port/crypt.c
> 14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
> 15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
> 16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
> 17. ./src/port/rand.c
> 18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
> 19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
> 20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
> 21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
> 22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
> 23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
> 24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
> 25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
> 26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
> 27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
> 28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
> 29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
> 30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
> 31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
> 32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
> 33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
> 34. ./src/port/glob.c
> 35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
> 36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
> 37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
> 38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
> 39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
> 40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
> 41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> 42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
> 43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
> 44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
> 45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
> 46. ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
> 47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
> 48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
> 49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
> 50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
> 51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
> 52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
> 53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
> 54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
> 55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
> 56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
> 57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Fwd: IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating)
2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Ed Espino <ee...@pivotal.io>.
Sent prematurely. I also meant to send to Justin Mclean directly. Sorry
for the noise.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ed Espino <ee...@pivotal.io>
Date: Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating)
2.0.0.0-incubating Release
To: dev@hawq.incubator.apache.org
Justin,
Couple of items:
- What process did you use to perform your review? It was very
thorough. Did you use a tool (RAT or other)? We want to learn from this
initial experience.
- I have gone through some of the issues you raised and I have made a
commit in my dev branch. Can you review it to see if we are on the right
track?
- https://github.com/edespino/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating
Cheers,
-=e
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> HI,
>
> > I'll take a shot at HAWQ-958 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958> (LICENSE file missing
> checklist).
>
> If you need a hand or would like me to check before you put it up for vote
> just ask.
>
> > BTW: Justin, how do I get you that beer (
> https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/ <
> https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/>)? You definitely deserve it?
>
> Ah Feral Hop Hog is one of my preferred beers here in Oz. But happy to
> accept something, sometime at a future ApacheCon.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
*Ed Espino*
*Director, Pivotal Technical Staff*
*Cell: *925.389.4640
--
*Ed Espino*
*Director, Pivotal Technical Staff*
*Cell: *925.389.4640
Re: IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating)
2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Ed Espino <ee...@pivotal.io>.
Justin,
Couple of items:
- What process did you use to perform your review? It was very
thorough. Did you use a tool (RAT or other)? We want to learn from this
initial experience.
- I have gone through some of your issues and I have made a commit in my
dev branch. Can you review it to see if we are on the right track?
- https://github.com/edespino/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating
Cheers,
-=e
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> HI,
>
> > I'll take a shot at HAWQ-958 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958> (LICENSE file missing
> checklist).
>
> If you need a hand or would like me to check before you put it up for vote
> just ask.
>
> > BTW: Justin, how do I get you that beer (
> https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/ <
> https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/>)? You definitely deserve it?
>
> Ah Feral Hop Hog is one of my preferred beers here in Oz. But happy to
> accept something, sometime at a future ApacheCon.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
--
*Ed Espino*
*Director, Pivotal Technical Staff*
*Cell: *925.389.4640
Re: IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> I'll take a shot at HAWQ-958 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958> (LICENSE file missing checklist).
If you need a hand or would like me to check before you put it up for vote just ask.
> BTW: Justin, how do I get you that beer (https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/ <https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/>)? You definitely deserve it?
Ah Feral Hop Hog is one of my preferred beers here in Oz. But happy to accept something, sometime at a future ApacheCon.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating)
2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Ed Espino <es...@apache.org>.
Goden,
I'll take a shot at HAWQ-958
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958> (LICENSE file missing
checklist).
BTW: Justin, how do I get you that beer (
https://www.feralbrewing.com.au/feral-beer/)? You definitely deserve it?
-=e
--
*Ed Espino*
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> I've filed 5 JIRAs
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-960 (NOT a release blocker -
> but nice to have)
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-959 (clean up binary files)
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958 (huge list for license
> missing, we need help to review these files one by one - anyone can
> volunteer themselves?)
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-957 (Notice file clean up)
> - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 (COPYRIGHT file clean up)
> For 952, 957 , I got some contradictory feedback from general@incubator
> mailing list - Can some of our mentors help to guide what's the right way
> to put COPYRIGHT content into NOTICE file?
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:13 AM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > In case you're not in general incubator mailing list.
> > this is by far the most detailed, thorough analysis I got from IPMC.
> > As a community, we need to go through these items one by one and make
> sure
> > we resolve them for the next release candidate.
> >
> > I'll start some preliminary work by filing JIRAs for items I think making
> > sense.
> > For arguable items, we should seek for mentor's guidance or suggestions.
> >
> > Thanks all.
> > -Goden
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> > From: Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > Date: Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
> > To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF
> > header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of
> > GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in
> release
> > (BSD with ad clause).
> >
> > This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things
> due
> > to the large amount of noise.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - release contains incubating
> > - signatures and hashes good
> > - I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it
> > has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t
> > not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source
> > files. [1]
> > - NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would
> > expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who
> donated
> > the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original
> > files.
> > - LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
> > - Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in
> > LICENSE
> > - Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be
> > others given rat reports 770+ binary files
> > - Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the
> > large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
> > - Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
> >
> > License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
> > - BSD licensed code [3]
> > - BSD license code [7]
> > - license for this file [9]
> > - license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
> > - MIT license PSI [11]
> > - BSD licensed code [12]
> > - BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
> > - BSD licensed code [15][16]
> > - license for this file [17]
> > - license of these files [18][19]
> > - license of this file [20]
> > - regex license [21]
> > - How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation
> GmbH
> > - How is this file licensed? [23]
> > - BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an
> > export license?
> > - pgdump [25]
> > - license for this file [26]
> > - license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been
> > incorrectly added to this.
> > - This BSD licensed file [36]
> > - license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
> > - This BSD licensed file [40]
> > - This BSD licensed file [41]
> > - BSD licensed pychecker [42]
> > - licenses for all of these files [43]
> > - BSD license pg800 [44]
> > - how is this file licensed? [45]
> > - license for this file [47]
> > - Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable
> license?
> > - How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and
> > missing headers.
> > - BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF
> > headers applied.
> > - This BSD licensed file [51]
> > - This public domain style sheet [52]
> > - This file [53]
> > - License for unit test2 [54]
> > - MIT licensed lock file [55]
> > - JSON code here [56]
> > - License for this file [57]
> >
> > And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would
> > likely take many many hours.
> >
> > Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the
> release.
> >
> > This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it.
> > Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
> >
> > Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not
> > compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may
> be
> > that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that
> > needs to be checked.
> >
> > I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
> > than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
> > how do I know how to build this release?
> >
> > Also some one owes me a beer!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> > 2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
> > 3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> > 4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
> > 5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
> > 6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
> > 7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
> > 8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
> > 9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
> > 10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
> > 11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
> > 12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
> > 13 ./src/port/crypt.c
> > 14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
> > 15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
> > 16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
> > 17. ./src/port/rand.c
> > 18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
> > 19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
> > 20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
> > 21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
> > 22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
> > 23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
> > 24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
> > 25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
> > 26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
> > 27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
> > 28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
> > 29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
> > 30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
> > 31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
> > 32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
> > 33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
> > 34. ./src/port/glob.c
> > 35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
> > 36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
> > 37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
> > 38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
> > 39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
> > 40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
> > 41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> > 42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
> > 43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
> > 44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
> > 45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
> > 46.
> >
> ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
> > 47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
> > 48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
> > 49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
> > 50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
> > 51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
> > 52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
> > 53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
> > 54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
> > 55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
> > 56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
> > 57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating)
2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
I've filed 5 JIRAs
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-960 (NOT a release blocker -
but nice to have)
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-959 (clean up binary files)
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-958 (huge list for license
missing, we need help to review these files one by one - anyone can
volunteer themselves?)
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-957 (Notice file clean up)
- https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 (COPYRIGHT file clean up)
For 952, 957 , I got some contradictory feedback from general@incubator
mailing list - Can some of our mentors help to guide what's the right way
to put COPYRIGHT content into NOTICE file?
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 10:13 AM Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> In case you're not in general incubator mailing list.
> this is by far the most detailed, thorough analysis I got from IPMC.
> As a community, we need to go through these items one by one and make sure
> we resolve them for the next release candidate.
>
> I'll start some preliminary work by filing JIRAs for items I think making
> sense.
> For arguable items, we should seek for mentor's guidance or suggestions.
>
> Thanks all.
> -Goden
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> Date: Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
> To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF
> header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of
> GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release
> (BSD with ad clause).
>
> This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things due
> to the large amount of noise.
>
> I checked:
> - release contains incubating
> - signatures and hashes good
> - I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it
> has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t
> not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source
> files. [1]
> - NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would
> expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who donated
> the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original
> files.
> - LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
> - Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in
> LICENSE
> - Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be
> others given rat reports 770+ binary files
> - Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the
> large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
> - Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
>
> License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
> - BSD licensed code [3]
> - BSD license code [7]
> - license for this file [9]
> - license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
> - MIT license PSI [11]
> - BSD licensed code [12]
> - BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
> - BSD licensed code [15][16]
> - license for this file [17]
> - license of these files [18][19]
> - license of this file [20]
> - regex license [21]
> - How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation GmbH
> - How is this file licensed? [23]
> - BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an
> export license?
> - pgdump [25]
> - license for this file [26]
> - license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been
> incorrectly added to this.
> - This BSD licensed file [36]
> - license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
> - This BSD licensed file [40]
> - This BSD licensed file [41]
> - BSD licensed pychecker [42]
> - licenses for all of these files [43]
> - BSD license pg800 [44]
> - how is this file licensed? [45]
> - license for this file [47]
> - Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable license?
> - How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and
> missing headers.
> - BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF
> headers applied.
> - This BSD licensed file [51]
> - This public domain style sheet [52]
> - This file [53]
> - License for unit test2 [54]
> - MIT licensed lock file [55]
> - JSON code here [56]
> - License for this file [57]
>
> And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would
> likely take many many hours.
>
> Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the release.
>
> This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it.
> Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
>
> Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not
> compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be
> that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that
> needs to be checked.
>
> I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
> than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
> how do I know how to build this release?
>
> Also some one owes me a beer!
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
> 2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
> 3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> 4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
> 5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
> 6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
> 7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
> 8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
> 9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
> 10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
> 11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
> 12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
> 13 ./src/port/crypt.c
> 14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
> 15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
> 16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
> 17. ./src/port/rand.c
> 18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
> 19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
> 20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
> 21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
> 22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
> 23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
> 24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
> 25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
> 26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
> 27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
> 28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
> 29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
> 30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
> 31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
> 32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
> 33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
> 34. ./src/port/glob.c
> 35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
> 36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
> 37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
> 38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
> 39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
> 40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
> 41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
> 42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
> 43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
> 44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
> 45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
> 46.
> ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
> 47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
> 48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
> 49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
> 50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
> 51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
> 52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
> 53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
> 54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
> 55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
> 56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
> 57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
IPMC VOTE Feedback (was Fwd: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating)
2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Goden Yao <go...@apache.org>.
In case you're not in general incubator mailing list.
this is by far the most detailed, thorough analysis I got from IPMC.
As a community, we need to go through these items one by one and make sure
we resolve them for the next release candidate.
I'll start some preliminary work by filing JIRAs for items I think making
sense.
For arguable items, we should seek for mentor's guidance or suggestions.
Thanks all.
-Goden
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Hi,
-1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF
header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of
GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release
(BSD with ad clause).
This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things due
to the large amount of noise.
I checked:
- release contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it
has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t
not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source
files. [1]
- NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would
expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who donated
the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original
files.
- LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
- Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in
LICENSE
- Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be others
given rat reports 770+ binary files
- Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the
large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
- Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
- BSD licensed code [3]
- BSD license code [7]
- license for this file [9]
- license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
- MIT license PSI [11]
- BSD licensed code [12]
- BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
- BSD licensed code [15][16]
- license for this file [17]
- license of these files [18][19]
- license of this file [20]
- regex license [21]
- How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation GmbH
- How is this file licensed? [23]
- BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an
export license?
- pgdump [25]
- license for this file [26]
- license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been
incorrectly added to this.
- This BSD licensed file [36]
- license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
- This BSD licensed file [40]
- This BSD licensed file [41]
- BSD licensed pychecker [42]
- licenses for all of these files [43]
- BSD license pg800 [44]
- how is this file licensed? [45]
- license for this file [47]
- Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable license?
- How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and
missing headers.
- BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF
headers applied.
- This BSD licensed file [51]
- This public domain style sheet [52]
- This file [53]
- License for unit test2 [54]
- MIT licensed lock file [55]
- JSON code here [56]
- License for this file [57]
And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would
likely take many many hours.
Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the release.
This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it. Also
why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not
compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be
that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that
needs to be checked.
I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather
than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future
how do I know how to build this release?
Also some one owes me a beer!
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
13 ./src/port/crypt.c
14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
17. ./src/port/rand.c
18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
34. ./src/port/glob.c
35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
46.
./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
-1 (binding) binary in source release, LICENSE and NOTICE issues, ASF header added to files not under Apache 2.0 license, possible inclusion of GPL licensed software and possible Category X software included in release (BSD with ad clause).
This is not a simple release to check and I may of missed a few things due to the large amount of noise.
I checked:
- release contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- I’m not sure what the intent of COPYRIGHT is. I also don't think as it has been suggested that this should be merged with NOTICE, NOTICE doesn’t not list all copyrights just those that have be relocated from source files. [1]
- NOTICE incorrecly contains a long list of copyright statements. I would expect to see one or perhaps two here i.e. the original authors who donated the software and who copyright statements were removed from the original files.
- LICENSE is missing a large number of things (see below)
- Please use the short form of the license linking to a license files in LICENSE
- Looks like there is an unexpected binary in the release [2] May be others given rat reports 770+ binary files
- Impossible to say if files have correct ASF headers or not, given the large number of files with ASF headers (5000 odd files)
- Failed to compile form source but likely my setup
License is missing (in some cases note the different copyright owners)
- BSD licensed code [3]
- BSD license code [7]
- license for this file [9]
- license for this file [10] Are we OK this was taken form GNU C?
- MIT license PSI [11]
- BSD licensed code [12]
- BSD licensed code [13] Is this regard as cryptography code? [14]
- BSD licensed code [15][16]
- license for this file [17]
- license of these files [18][19]
- license of this file [20]
- regex license [21]
- How are these files licensed? [22] + others copyright AEG Automation GmbH
- How is this file licensed? [23]
- BSD licensed libpq [24]. Is this consider crypto code and may need an export license?
- pgdump [25]
- license for this file [26]
- license for this file [27] Look like an ASF header may of been incorrectly added to this.
- This BSD licensed file [36]
- license for these files [37][38] and others in [39]
- This BSD licensed file [40]
- This BSD licensed file [41]
- BSD licensed pychecker [42]
- licenses for all of these files [43]
- BSD license pg800 [44]
- how is this file licensed? [45]
- license for this file [47]
- Python license for this file [48]. Is this an Apache comparable license?
- How are these files licensed? [49] Note multiple copyright owners and missing headers.
- BSD licensed fig leaf. [50] Note that files incorrectly has had ASF headers applied.
- This BSD licensed file [51]
- This public domain style sheet [52]
- This file [53]
- License for unit test2 [54]
- MIT licensed lock file [55]
- JSON code here [56]
- License for this file [57]
And I may of missed some, as I wasn't doing a full review - that would likely take many many hours.
Looks like GPL/LPGL licensed code may be included [4][5][6] in the release.
This file [8] and others(?) may incorrectly have an ASF headers on it. Also why does this file have an ASF header with copyright line? [46]
Code includes code licensed under the 4 clause BSD license which is not compatible with the Apache 2.0 license. [28][29][30][31][32][33] It may be that this clause has been rescinded [35] and it OK to include but that needs to be checked.
I’d suggest that build instructions are included in the release rather than a link to them. If the instructions at the URL change in the future how do I know how to build this release?
Also some one owes me a beer!
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
2. depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/erl/rebar
3. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
4. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/debian/copyright (end of file)
5. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/doc/licenses/lgpl-2.1.txt
6. ./tools/bin/gppylib/operations/test/test_package.py
7. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/compiler/cpp/src/md5.?
8. ./tools/sbin/hawqstandbywatch.py
9. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/ultrix4.h
10. ./src/port/inet_aton.c
11. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PSI-0.3b2_gp/
12. ./src/port/snprintf.c
13 ./src/port/crypt.c
14. http://www.apache.org/dev/crypto.html
15. ./src/port/memcmp.c
16. ./src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
17. ./src/port/rand.c
18. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_ntop.c
19. ./src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c
20 ./src/port/strlcpy.c
21. ./src/backend/regex/COPYRIGHT
22. ./src/backend/port/qnx4/shm.c
23. ./src/backend/port/beos/shm.c
24. ./src/backend/libpq/sha2.?
25. ./src/bin/pg_dump/
26. ./src/port/gettimeofday.c
27. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/cpp/src/thrift/windows/SocketPair.cpp
28. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
29. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
30. ./src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
31. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/glob.c
32. ./src/bin/gpfdist/src/gpfdist/include/glob.h
33. ./src/include/port/win32_msvc/glob.h
34. ./src/port/glob.c
35. ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
36. ./src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c
37. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_cxx_compile_stdcxx_11.m4
38. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal/ax_boost_base.m4
39. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/aclocal
40. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/build/cmake/FindGLIB.cmake
41. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/setup.py
42. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/
43. ./src/interfaces/libpq/po/*.po
44. ./tools/bin/ext/pg8000/*
45. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/UCS_to_GB18030.pl
46. ./contrib/hawq-hadoop/hawq-mapreduce-tool/src/test/resources/log4j.properties
47 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/lockfile/pidlockfile.py
48 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/pychecker-0.8.18/pychecker2/symbols.py
49. ./src/backend/utils/mb/Unicode/*
50. ./tools/bin/ext/figleaf/*
51. ./depends/thirdparty/thrift/lib/py/compat/win32/stdint.h
52. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/PyGreSQL-4.0/docs/default.css
53. ./src/test/locale/test-ctype.c
54 ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/unittest2-0.5.1/unittest2/
55. ./tools/bin/pythonSrc/lockfile-0.9.1/LICENSE
56. ./src/include/catalog/JSON
57. ./src/pl/plperl/ppport.h
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.
Thanks John.
depends
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating/depends>/
libhdfs3
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating/depends/libhdfs3>
/test
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating/depends/libhdfs3/test>
/data/, depends
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating/depends>/
libyarn
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating/depends/libyarn>
/test
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/tree/2.0.0.0-incubating/depends/libyarn/test>
/data/ - do you mean these 2 folders?
I can see some xml files contain ASF license header , some are not.
According to the license file, last section, those files missing header are
under postgres license. Can you be more specific about your concern
regarding the naming of the files?
Do you mean the file names indicate the files are owned/licensed by other
party not postgres?
Thank you for helping on the very 1st release.
-Goden
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:15 PM John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I can't find any binaries.
>
> However, I have many questions about your license file. According to the
> license, the files under depends/*/test/data (and similar directories) fall
> under a Postgres license. Considering what these files are named, that
> doesn't sound right.
>
> Personally, there are way too many files in the source release missing
> headers for me to be able to vote anything but -1.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:51 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Alan for the prompt feedback.
> > I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 for the
> COPYRIGHT
> > file issue.
> >
> > For executable binary files in <contrib>, can you be more specific? I
> > couldn't locate them in source tree and hopefully I didn't pack them by
> > mistake.
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -1. There are a number of binary executables in the contrib directory.
> > > Binary executables can’t be in a source release.
> > >
> > > Also, the contents of the COPYRIGHT file should be in NOTICE rather
> than
> > > in a separate file.
> > >
> > > Alan.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:31, Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi IPMC,
> > > >
> > > > The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed.
> > > > We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community.
> > > >
> > > > The PPMC vote thread is here:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *This release fixes the following issues:*
> > > > Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code
> tarball
> > > only
> > > > release.
> > > > Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0.0-incubating
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *We're voting upon the release branch:*
> > > > 2.0.0.0-incubating
> > > > HEAD: commit
> > > > <
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=9bdad43ebbbcefce23db193c3a7dd62ea6a3d805
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *Source Files:*
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0.0-incubating.RC2
> > > >
> > > > *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
> > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
> > > >
> > > > **** Please download and evaluate the release candidate build ***
> *(in
> > > IP,
> > > > license, RAT check, etc.)
> > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number
> > of
> > > > votes
> > > >
> > > > Please vote:
> > > > [ ] +1 Release this tarball
> > > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > > [ ] -1 Do not release as ...
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -Goden
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I can't find any binaries.
However, I have many questions about your license file. According to the
license, the files under depends/*/test/data (and similar directories) fall
under a Postgres license. Considering what these files are named, that
doesn't sound right.
Personally, there are way too many files in the source release missing
headers for me to be able to vote anything but -1.
John
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:51 PM Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Thanks Alan for the prompt feedback.
> I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 for the COPYRIGHT
> file issue.
>
> For executable binary files in <contrib>, can you be more specific? I
> couldn't locate them in source tree and hopefully I didn't pack them by
> mistake.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > -1. There are a number of binary executables in the contrib directory.
> > Binary executables can’t be in a source release.
> >
> > Also, the contents of the COPYRIGHT file should be in NOTICE rather than
> > in a separate file.
> >
> > Alan.
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:31, Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi IPMC,
> > >
> > > The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed.
> > > We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community.
> > >
> > > The PPMC vote thread is here:
> > >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > >
> > > *This release fixes the following issues:*
> > > Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball
> > only
> > > release.
> > > Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
> > > <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0.0-incubating
> > >
> > >
> > > *We're voting upon the release branch:*
> > > 2.0.0.0-incubating
> > > HEAD: commit
> > > <
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=9bdad43ebbbcefce23db193c3a7dd62ea6a3d805
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Source Files:*
> > >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0.0-incubating.RC2
> > >
> > > *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
> > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
> > >
> > > **** Please download and evaluate the release candidate build *** *(in
> > IP,
> > > license, RAT check, etc.)
> > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number
> of
> > > votes
> > >
> > > Please vote:
> > > [ ] +1 Release this tarball
> > > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release as ...
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -Goden
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com>.
My mistake on the binaries. I did a ‘find . -type f -exec file {} \;’ and it turned up a bunch of files that it said were unstripped executables, but I didn’t notice that they were in a directory called ‘hawq-data’, so I assume these are test data files, not actual executables. Sorry about that.
Alan.
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 14:51, Ting(Goden) Yao <ty...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> Thanks Alan for the prompt feedback.
> I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 for the COPYRIGHT
> file issue.
>
> For executable binary files in <contrib>, can you be more specific? I
> couldn't locate them in source tree and hopefully I didn't pack them by
> mistake.
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -1. There are a number of binary executables in the contrib directory.
>> Binary executables can’t be in a source release.
>>
>> Also, the contents of the COPYRIGHT file should be in NOTICE rather than
>> in a separate file.
>>
>> Alan.
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:31, Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi IPMC,
>>>
>>> The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed.
>>> We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community.
>>>
>>> The PPMC vote thread is here:
>>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E
>>>
>>>
>>> *This release fixes the following issues:*
>>> Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball
>> only
>>> release.
>>> Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
>>> <
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0.0-incubating
>>>
>>>
>>> *We're voting upon the release branch:*
>>> 2.0.0.0-incubating
>>> HEAD: commit
>>> <
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=9bdad43ebbbcefce23db193c3a7dd62ea6a3d805
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Source Files:*
>>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0.0-incubating.RC2
>>>
>>> *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
>>>
>>> **** Please download and evaluate the release candidate build *** *(in
>> IP,
>>> license, RAT check, etc.)
>>> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number of
>>> votes
>>>
>>> Please vote:
>>> [ ] +1 Release this tarball
>>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> [ ] -1 Do not release as ...
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Goden
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by "Ting(Goden) Yao" <ty...@pivotal.io>.
Thanks Alan for the prompt feedback.
I filed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HAWQ-952 for the COPYRIGHT
file issue.
For executable binary files in <contrib>, can you be more specific? I
couldn't locate them in source tree and hopefully I didn't pack them by
mistake.
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -1. There are a number of binary executables in the contrib directory.
> Binary executables can’t be in a source release.
>
> Also, the contents of the COPYRIGHT file should be in NOTICE rather than
> in a separate file.
>
> Alan.
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:31, Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi IPMC,
> >
> > The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed.
> > We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community.
> >
> > The PPMC vote thread is here:
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E
> >
> >
> > *This release fixes the following issues:*
> > Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball
> only
> > release.
> > Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
> > <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0.0-incubating
> >
> >
> > *We're voting upon the release branch:*
> > 2.0.0.0-incubating
> > HEAD: commit
> > <
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=9bdad43ebbbcefce23db193c3a7dd62ea6a3d805
> >
> >
> >
> > *Source Files:*
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0.0-incubating.RC2
> >
> > *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
> >
> > **** Please download and evaluate the release candidate build *** *(in
> IP,
> > license, RAT check, etc.)
> > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number of
> > votes
> >
> > Please vote:
> > [ ] +1 Release this tarball
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release as ...
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Goden
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Posted by Alan Gates <al...@gmail.com>.
-1. There are a number of binary executables in the contrib directory. Binary executables can’t be in a source release.
Also, the contents of the COPYRIGHT file should be in NOTICE rather than in a separate file.
Alan.
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:31, Goden Yao <go...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi IPMC,
>
> The PPMC vote to release Apache HAWQ 2.0.0.0-incubating has passed.
> We've got eleven +1 Votes zero -1 or 0 votes from the community.
>
> The PPMC vote thread is here:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c285399e2aa3f4d3cc085654779f45bebccf2124df40bf2ec355c183@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E
>
>
> *This release fixes the following issues:*
> Clear all IP related issues for HAWQ and this is a source code tarball only
> release.
> Full list of JIRAs fixed/related to the release: link
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/HAWQ/HAWQ+Release+2.0.0.0-incubating>
>
> *We're voting upon the release branch:*
> 2.0.0.0-incubating
> HEAD: commit
> <https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-hawq.git;a=commit;h=9bdad43ebbbcefce23db193c3a7dd62ea6a3d805>
>
>
> *Source Files:*
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.0.0.0-incubating.RC2
>
> *KEYS file containing PGP Keys we use to sign the release:*
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/KEYS
>
> **** Please download and evaluate the release candidate build *** *(in IP,
> license, RAT check, etc.)
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number of
> votes
>
> Please vote:
> [ ] +1 Release this tarball
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release as ...
>
> Thanks
> -Goden
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org