You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> on 2015/03/31 03:38:25 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Hello,
The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
are from the IPMC members)
2 +1 (IPMC)
5 +1 (PPMC)
The dev list voting thread:
http://s.apache.org/N5N
All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
Please start voting.
+1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
I'll do it later tonight if nobody beats me to it.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dear IPMC - we are one binding vote short. Can anyone chime in, pretty please?
> Then we'll have April's Fools release of Ignite ;)
>
> Thanks!
> Cos
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:38PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>>
>> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>>
>> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
>> are from the IPMC members)
>>
>> 2 +1 (IPMC)
>> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>>
>> The dev list voting thread:
>> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>>
>> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>>
>> Please start voting.
>>
>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
>> 0 - don't care either way
>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Dear IPMC - we are one binding vote short. Can anyone chime in, pretty please?
Then we'll have April's Fools release of Ignite ;)
Thanks!
Cos
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:38PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>
> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>
> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
> are from the IPMC members)
>
> 2 +1 (IPMC)
> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>
> The dev list voting thread:
> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>
> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 09:03PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> >>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
> >>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
> >>> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
> >>> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
> >>> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
> >>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
> >> We've been through this and I disagree. Do not confuse release process
> >> with release naming. That page conflates the two, which makes it just a
> >> bit broken IMO. There are no rules for release naming "in Apache".
> > It would be more apparent that the podling has their release process under
> > control if the release-process-candidates being iterated on were clearly
> > differentiated using unambiguous directory names, Git tag names, etc.
> >
> > For example, the last vote could have been on...
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3-rc2
> > GIT tag release-1.0.0-RC3-rc2
> >
> > ... and this vote could have been on:
> >
> > http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-rc0
> > GIT tag release-1.0.0-rc0
> >
> > That's still a little hard to follow, but at least it distinguishes different
> > release-process-candidates from each other.
>
> Oh, that's a different matter entirely. Release process needs polishing
> and documenting (and scripting and automating), I agree; up to now, it's
> been mostly about getting the licensing stuff squared away. One step at
> a time. :)
Indeed!
Cos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 31.03.2015 17:46, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
>>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
>>> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
>>> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
>>> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
>>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>> We've been through this and I disagree. Do not confuse release process
>> with release naming. That page conflates the two, which makes it just a
>> bit broken IMO. There are no rules for release naming "in Apache".
> It would be more apparent that the podling has their release process under
> control if the release-process-candidates being iterated on were clearly
> differentiated using unambiguous directory names, Git tag names, etc.
>
> For example, the last vote could have been on...
>
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3-rc2
> GIT tag release-1.0.0-RC3-rc2
>
> ... and this vote could have been on:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-rc0
> GIT tag release-1.0.0-rc0
>
> That's still a little hard to follow, but at least it distinguishes different
> release-process-candidates from each other.
Oh, that's a different matter entirely. Release process needs polishing
and documenting (and scripting and automating), I agree; up to now, it's
been mostly about getting the licensing stuff squared away. One step at
a time. :)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
>> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
>> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
>> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> We've been through this and I disagree. Do not confuse release process
> with release naming. That page conflates the two, which makes it just a
> bit broken IMO. There are no rules for release naming "in Apache".
It would be more apparent that the podling has their release process under
control if the release-process-candidates being iterated on were clearly
differentiated using unambiguous directory names, Git tag names, etc.
For example, the last vote could have been on...
http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3-rc2
GIT tag release-1.0.0-RC3-rc2
... and this vote could have been on:
http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-rc0
GIT tag release-1.0.0-rc0
That's still a little hard to follow, but at least it distinguishes different
release-process-candidates from each other.
I understand the rationales as to why Ignite might need an official release
called "1.0.0-RC3", but is there nothing that the podling can do about the
problem of voting on several different things all with the same name? Is
the Ignite community clear on why that might cause problems?
During the PPMC vote thread for the last release, I see this exchange:
> > GIT tag: release-1.0.0-RC3 (I deleted the old RC3 tag and created the
> > new one)
>
> For the future, I recommend not moving a tag; instead, if a release
> package is bad, just create the next highest numbered package; in this
> case, it'd be RC4 (or more likely RC5, since this is the second
> resubmission of the "same" package). Doing it this way avoids possible
> misunderstandings about what is being proposed for release.
I agree. Will do it next time. My hope though is to get a +1 for this one,
so I won't have to :)
Yet here we are voting on something ambiguous again -- and predictably,
another person has gotten confused. It doesn't block this VOTE, but I hope
that Ignite follows through and does things differently in the future.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
Agree that release.html needs some polishing, and that there are no
hard rules on the versions (even "don't re-release the same version"
is not written down in letters).
Obviously it would still be confusing to vote over say RC2 of
1.0.0-RC3 and best avoided if possible. This vote is luckily over
the proper 1.0.0 release - but I also spotted a 1.0.1-RC1 in the Maven
repositories.
On 31 March 2015 at 15:44, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
>> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
>> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
>> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
> We've been through this and I disagree. Do not confuse release process
> with release naming. That page conflates the two, which makes it just a
> bit broken IMO. There are no rules for release naming "in Apache".
>
> -- Brane
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 31.03.2015 16:00, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
We've been through this and I disagree. Do not confuse release process
with release naming. That page conflates the two, which makes it just a
bit broken IMO. There are no rules for release naming "in Apache".
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
I change my vote to +1 (non-binding), fixing for next release is good
enough for me. :-)
Perhaps worth also checking that maven plugin (assembly?) and report
upstream - simply picking last <license> is a bit fragile.
On 31 Mar 2015 22:54, "Dmitriy Setrakyan" <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > ?
> > My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :)
> >
> >
> > The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even
> > without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in
> > the edtFTPj dependency.
> >
> > It is also in the zip:
> > inflating:
> > ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ignite-urideploy/edtFTPj-1.5.3.jar
> >
>
> Apologies, I confused it with cron4j, which is part of LGPL-based optional
> schedule module and is not included.
>
>
> >
> >
> > I see it says a different license there
> >
> >
> >
> ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ignite-urideploy/licenses/edtftp-license.pdf
> > (from http://www.enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/doc/license.pdf )
> >
> > which is "Subject to payment of the Source License fee:" and have
> > several requirements for notices (which may or may not be satisfied by
> > you including that PDF :) )
> >
> >
> > This is a bit unclear to me.. have you paid that fee? Do I need to pay
> > that fee to use urideploy? Can I give this compiled
> > ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip to a customer, or would they also need to pay
> > a fee?
> >
>
> You are absolutely right. I actually completely forgot about this one.
> Looks like the license provided is wrong, and we have a license bug. The
> actual license is LGPLv2. You can clearly see it from here:
> https://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
>
> Currently, we are not excluding it from the release binary by mistake and
> can fix it in the next release. However, we do not include any edtFTPj
> source code into Apache Ignite, so the source code of Apache Ignite is LGPL
> free. During the build, it ends up in the "libs/optional" folder and is not
> turned on, unless explicitly moved to the "libs" folder.
>
> We will definitely address it in the next release. Ticket has been filed:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-660
>
>
>
> >
> > I guess this comes from
> >
> >
> http://central.maven.org/maven2/com/enterprisedt/edtFTPj/1.5.3/edtFTPj-1.5.3.pom
> > and some Maven plugin just picking the last <license> ?
> >
> >
> > On 31 March 2015 at 16:43, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <stain@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
> > >>
> > >> http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
> > >> modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
> > >>
> > >> If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Stian, edtFTPj is also optional (sorry, forgot to mention). I am not
> sure
> > > what you mean by commenting it, but the maven build does not include it
> > > into the release with default settings, no need to change anything.
> > >
> > > - Execute "mvn clean package -DskipTests" with JDK 7
> > > - Go into "target" folder and unzip "ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip" file
> > > - You will notice that there is not a single LGPL dependency there.
> > >
> > > If users would like to explicitly include LGPL dependencies into their
> > own
> > > build, then they should build the project with the following command:
> > >
> > > "mvn clean package -DskipTests -Prelease,lgpl"
> > >
> > > These instructions are also listed in the DEVNOTES.txt.
> > >
> > > Hope this clarifies things.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> modules/urideploy is depended on by modules/spring which is depended
> > >> on by lots of other modules, it does not look optional to me.
> > >>
> > >> On 31 March 2015 at 16:26, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
> > stain@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
> > >> >
> > >> > I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed
> > during
> > >> > the last release:
> > >> >
> > >> > http://s.apache.org/vfN
> > >> >
> > >> > As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
> > >> > dependencies which are for the optional integration with the
> > >> following
> > >> > products:
> > >> >
> > >> > - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
> > >> > - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial
> indexing,
> > >> > http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
> > >> >
> > >> > Marvin Humphrey
> > >> >
> > >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> > >> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> > >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stian Soiland-Reyes
> > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> ?
> My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :)
>
>
> The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even
> without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in
> the edtFTPj dependency.
>
> It is also in the zip:
> inflating:
> ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ignite-urideploy/edtFTPj-1.5.3.jar
>
Apologies, I confused it with cron4j, which is part of LGPL-based optional
schedule module and is not included.
>
>
> I see it says a different license there
>
>
> ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ignite-urideploy/licenses/edtftp-license.pdf
> (from http://www.enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/doc/license.pdf )
>
> which is "Subject to payment of the Source License fee:" and have
> several requirements for notices (which may or may not be satisfied by
> you including that PDF :) )
>
>
> This is a bit unclear to me.. have you paid that fee? Do I need to pay
> that fee to use urideploy? Can I give this compiled
> ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip to a customer, or would they also need to pay
> a fee?
>
You are absolutely right. I actually completely forgot about this one.
Looks like the license provided is wrong, and we have a license bug. The
actual license is LGPLv2. You can clearly see it from here:
https://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
Currently, we are not excluding it from the release binary by mistake and
can fix it in the next release. However, we do not include any edtFTPj
source code into Apache Ignite, so the source code of Apache Ignite is LGPL
free. During the build, it ends up in the "libs/optional" folder and is not
turned on, unless explicitly moved to the "libs" folder.
We will definitely address it in the next release. Ticket has been filed:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-660
>
> I guess this comes from
>
> http://central.maven.org/maven2/com/enterprisedt/edtFTPj/1.5.3/edtFTPj-1.5.3.pom
> and some Maven plugin just picking the last <license> ?
>
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 16:43, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
> >>
> >> http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
> >>
> >>
> >> but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
> >> modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
> >>
> >> If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors.
> >>
> >
> > Stian, edtFTPj is also optional (sorry, forgot to mention). I am not sure
> > what you mean by commenting it, but the maven build does not include it
> > into the release with default settings, no need to change anything.
> >
> > - Execute "mvn clean package -DskipTests" with JDK 7
> > - Go into "target" folder and unzip "ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip" file
> > - You will notice that there is not a single LGPL dependency there.
> >
> > If users would like to explicitly include LGPL dependencies into their
> own
> > build, then they should build the project with the following command:
> >
> > "mvn clean package -DskipTests -Prelease,lgpl"
> >
> > These instructions are also listed in the DEVNOTES.txt.
> >
> > Hope this clarifies things.
> >
> > D.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> modules/urideploy is depended on by modules/spring which is depended
> >> on by lots of other modules, it does not look optional to me.
> >>
> >> On 31 March 2015 at 16:26, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
> stain@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
> >> >
> >> > I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed
> during
> >> > the last release:
> >> >
> >> > http://s.apache.org/vfN
> >> >
> >> > As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
> >> > dependencies which are for the optional integration with the
> >> following
> >> > products:
> >> >
> >> > - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
> >> > - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
> >> > http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
> >> >
> >> > Marvin Humphrey
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> >> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> >> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
?
My apologies for not looking up how to actually use Ignite :)
The build still requires the edtFTPj dependency to compile, even
without -Plgpl - using urideploy through Maven would always pull in
the edtFTPj dependency.
It is also in the zip:
inflating: ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ignite-urideploy/edtFTPj-1.5.3.jar
I see it says a different license there
ignite-fabric-1.0.0/libs/optional/ignite-urideploy/licenses/edtftp-license.pdf
(from http://www.enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/doc/license.pdf )
which is "Subject to payment of the Source License fee:" and have
several requirements for notices (which may or may not be satisfied by
you including that PDF :) )
This is a bit unclear to me.. have you paid that fee? Do I need to pay
that fee to use urideploy? Can I give this compiled
ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip to a customer, or would they also need to pay
a fee?
I guess this comes from
http://central.maven.org/maven2/com/enterprisedt/edtFTPj/1.5.3/edtFTPj-1.5.3.pom
and some Maven plugin just picking the last <license> ?
On 31 March 2015 at 16:43, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
>>
>> http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
>>
>>
>> but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
>> modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
>>
>> If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors.
>>
>
> Stian, edtFTPj is also optional (sorry, forgot to mention). I am not sure
> what you mean by commenting it, but the maven build does not include it
> into the release with default settings, no need to change anything.
>
> - Execute "mvn clean package -DskipTests" with JDK 7
> - Go into "target" folder and unzip "ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip" file
> - You will notice that there is not a single LGPL dependency there.
>
> If users would like to explicitly include LGPL dependencies into their own
> build, then they should build the project with the following command:
>
> "mvn clean package -DskipTests -Prelease,lgpl"
>
> These instructions are also listed in the DEVNOTES.txt.
>
> Hope this clarifies things.
>
> D.
>
>
>>
>> modules/urideploy is depended on by modules/spring which is depended
>> on by lots of other modules, it does not look optional to me.
>>
>> On 31 March 2015 at 16:26, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
>> >
>> > I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
>> > the last release:
>> >
>> > http://s.apache.org/vfN
>> >
>> > As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
>> > dependencies which are for the optional integration with the
>> following
>> > products:
>> >
>> > - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
>> > - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
>> > http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
>> >
>> > Marvin Humphrey
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
>
> http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
>
>
> but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
> modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
>
> If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors.
>
Stian, edtFTPj is also optional (sorry, forgot to mention). I am not sure
what you mean by commenting it, but the maven build does not include it
into the release with default settings, no need to change anything.
- Execute "mvn clean package -DskipTests" with JDK 7
- Go into "target" folder and unzip "ignite-fabric-1.0.0.zip" file
- You will notice that there is not a single LGPL dependency there.
If users would like to explicitly include LGPL dependencies into their own
build, then they should build the project with the following command:
"mvn clean package -DskipTests -Prelease,lgpl"
These instructions are also listed in the DEVNOTES.txt.
Hope this clarifies things.
D.
>
> modules/urideploy is depended on by modules/spring which is depended
> on by lots of other modules, it does not look optional to me.
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 16:26, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
> >
> > I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
> > the last release:
> >
> > http://s.apache.org/vfN
> >
> > As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
> > dependencies which are for the optional integration with the
> following
> > products:
> >
> > - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
> > - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
> > http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
> >
> > Marvin Humphrey
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
That thread does not mention edtFTPj or the test dependencies.
http://enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/
but if edtFTPj is optional, why is it then not marked as such in the
modules/urideploy/pom.xml?
If I comment out edtFTPj, then I get lots of compiler errors.
modules/urideploy is depended on by modules/spring which is depended
on by lots of other modules, it does not look optional to me.
On 31 March 2015 at 16:26, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
>
> I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
> the last release:
>
> http://s.apache.org/vfN
>
> As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
> dependencies which are for the optional integration with the following
> products:
>
> - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
> - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
> http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
>
> I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
> the last release:
>
> http://s.apache.org/vfN
>
> As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
> dependencies which are for the optional integration with the following
> products:
>
> - Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
> - JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
> http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
I want to confirm that the LGPL dependencies are optional and are not
included into the release. If you do a maven build with default settings,
then the resulting binary will not have LGPL in it.
The licenses are provided for the optional LGPL modules to let users know
that if they decide to build that module, they will have LGPL dependency in
their project.
>
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> -0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
I think we established that these were optional and thus allowed during
the last release:
http://s.apache.org/vfN
As far as LGPL, to my knowledge, Ignite only has 2 optional LGPL
dependencies which are for the optional integration with the following
products:
- Hibernate ORM, http://hibernate.org/orm/
- JTS Topology Suite from VividSolutions for geospatial indexing,
http://www.vividsolutions.com/jts/JTSHome.htm
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
-0 because of required LGPL dependencies.
(As much as I would prefer LGPL dependencies to be allowed, they are not:
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html )
They are not technically *included* - so legally I think it is
passable for this release, as long as you only distribute this source
release - but it's still not good to have required runtime
dependencies on LGPL as it means anyone distributing binaries of
Apache Ignite will fall under the LGPL license requirements for
Combined Work.
You might want to be careful about putting the binary of
modules/urideploy in Maven - have you checked this with legal@apache?
(IANAL - others on this list might have many other views :) )
BUILD SUCCESS with Oracle JDK 7.
stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src$
mvn -version
Apache Maven 3.3.1 (cab6659f9874fa96462afef40fcf6bc033d58c1c;
2015-03-13T20:10:27+00:00)
Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
Java version: 1.7.0_72, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/jdk1.7.0_72/jre
Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux", version: "3.16.0-33-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix"
What is the license of javafx?
potentially dubious dependency licenses as reported by mvn
license:aggregate-add-third-party:
(GNU LESSER GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) c3p0:JDBC
DataSources/Resource Pools (c3p0:c3p0:0.9.1 -
http://c3p0.sourceforge.net)
from modules/core
OK, only <scope>test</scope>
(GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1) IRMI
(org.ow2.carol.irmi:irmi:1.1.2 - no url defined)
(GNU Lesser General Public License Version 2.1) Java EE: JTA API
v1.1 (org.ow2.spec.ee:ow2-jta-1.1-spec:1.0-M1 - no
url defined)
from ./modules/jta
OK as it is <scope>test</scope> via jotm-core
BUT:
(LGPL) (Unrestricted) edtFTPj (com.enterprisedt:edtFTPj:1.5.3 -
http://www.enterprisedt.com/products/edtftpj/overview.html)
from modules/urideploy/pom.xml
This one is -1 I am afraid :-(
Perhaps move modules/urideploy to the -Plgpl profile and modify modules/spring?
On 31 March 2015 at 15:29, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> sorry, my send button was trigger happy..
>>
>> +0 - due to build errors (see below)
>>
>
>> Verified:
>>
>> 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
>> 2) MD5/SHA1 signatures
>> 3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates, PDF)
>> 4) DISCLAIMER, LICENSE and NOTICE
>> 5) rat plugin happy (mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses)
>>
>> but:
>>
>> 6) FAILS mvn clean package -DskipTests (as DEVNOTES.txt says I
>> should run) -- see below
>>
>
> It should work with Oracle JDK 7, can you try? In the next release JDK will
> not matter, but for now we require Oracle Java 7.
>
>
>> 7) Which git tag is this?
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/releases has a lot of RCs..
>> I will assume 'ignite-1.0.0' aka
>> 5fc2cd053467e65872f796e11e3edd2e6017d80d aka
>>
>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=commit;h=5fc2cd053467e65872f796e11e3edd2e6017d80d
>> -- which matches 100% with the src.zip.
>>
>
> Correct.
>
>
>>
>> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
>> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
>> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
>> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
>> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
>> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>>
>>
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/ignite/ignite-core/
>> http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ignite/
>> contains 1.0.0-RC1/ and 1.0.0-RC3/ -- are these released release
>> candidates? Well, done is done, I guess :)
>>
>>
> Agreed. Will not use RCs in the future.
>
>
>>
>> 8) Which of these many open staging Maven repositories is it you are
>> planning to release? Although the voting thread is strictly over
>> source release - it would be nice to know (I think those also should
>> be subject to some checks), and drop the the others.
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
>
>
> I think neither. The ones you see are just for testing and will be cleaned
> up.
>
> We are currently experiencing problems with Apache Maven when trying to
> deploy to the repository. I can send another link once the issue is
> resolved.
>
>
>>
>>
>> 9) Due to the build errors I have not checked the dependency licenses,
>> mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party fails with the above error as
>> well.
>>
>
> Again, please rerun with Oracle JDK7. Ideally, devnotes should say
> something about it (will mention this on the website).
>
>
>
>>
>> Build error:
>>
>> [ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR :
>> [INFO] -------------------------------------------------------------
>> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
>> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[20,1]
>> package javafx.stage does not exist
>> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
>> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[25,43]
>> cannot find symbol
>> symbol: class Stage
>> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
>> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[27,21]
>> cannot find symbol
>> symbol: class Stage
>> location: class org.apache.ignite.schema.ui.ModalDialog
>> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
>> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[34,27]
>> cannot find symbol
>> symbol: class Stage
>> location: class org.apache.ignite.schema.ui.ModalDialog
>>
>>
>> DEVNOTES.txt does not mention anything special about this. Is this
>> related to javafx?
>>
>>
>> Tested with Maven 3.3.1 on Open JDK 8 on Ubuntu 14.10/x64
>>
>> stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/
>> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src$
>> mvn -version
>> Apache Maven 3.3.1 (cab6659f9874fa96462afef40fcf6bc033d58c1c;
>> 2015-03-13T20:10:27+00:00)
>> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
>> Java version: 1.8.0_40-internal, vendor: Oracle Corporation
>> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
>> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
>> OS name: "linux", version: "3.16.0-33-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
>> "unix"
>>
>>
>> If I try again with Open JDK 7 instead I get:
>>
>> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project ignite-schema-import: Could
>> not resolve dependencies for project
>> org.apache.ignite:ignite-schema-import:jar:1.0.0: The following
>> artifacts could not be resolved:
>> org.apache.ignite:ignite-core:jar:1.0.0, javafx:jfxrt:jar:1.7.0_75:
>> Failure to find org.apache.ignite:ignite-core:jar:1.0.0 in
>> https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2 was cached in the local
>> repository, resolution will not be reattempted until the update
>> interval of central has elapsed or updates are forced -> [Help 1]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 March 2015 at 14:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > You did not include the hashes, so I will assume:
>> >
>> > stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/
>> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0$
>> > cat *md5 *sha1
>> > 401e8407bb262aacb1600bb1444488f9 incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
>> > a8f643ffdc5b45101cf5a9ad5f19b9fce5a4099f incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
>> >
>> >
>> > I would have expected KEYS to be in the version-independent folder, e.g.
>> >
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/ignite/KEYS
>> >
>> >
>> > I would have expected the release candidate to have been uploaded to
>> > ignite/ under
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
>> > rather than at people.apache.org
>> > (and then just do a svn move of the version folder after approval -
>> > which pretty much guarantees that it's the correct files that were
>> > voted over).
>> >
>> >
>> > Verified:
>> >
>> > 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
>> > 2)
>> >
>> > On 31 March 2015 at 02:38, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>> >>
>> >> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>> >>
>> >> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2
>> votes
>> >> are from the IPMC members)
>> >>
>> >> 2 +1 (IPMC)
>> >> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>> >>
>> >> The dev list voting thread:
>> >> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>> >>
>> >> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
>> >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>> >>
>> >> Please start voting.
>> >>
>> >> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
>> >> 0 - don't care either way
>> >> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stian Soiland-Reyes
>> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
>> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
wrote:
> sorry, my send button was trigger happy..
>
> +0 - due to build errors (see below)
>
> Verified:
>
> 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
> 2) MD5/SHA1 signatures
> 3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates, PDF)
> 4) DISCLAIMER, LICENSE and NOTICE
> 5) rat plugin happy (mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses)
>
> but:
>
> 6) FAILS mvn clean package -DskipTests (as DEVNOTES.txt says I
> should run) -- see below
>
It should work with Oracle JDK 7, can you try? In the next release JDK will
not matter, but for now we require Oracle Java 7.
> 7) Which git tag is this?
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/releases has a lot of RCs..
> I will assume 'ignite-1.0.0' aka
> 5fc2cd053467e65872f796e11e3edd2e6017d80d aka
>
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=commit;h=5fc2cd053467e65872f796e11e3edd2e6017d80d
> -- which matches 100% with the src.zip.
>
Correct.
>
> 8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
> have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
> Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
> (this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
> called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
> https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
>
>
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/ignite/ignite-core/
> http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ignite/
> contains 1.0.0-RC1/ and 1.0.0-RC3/ -- are these released release
> candidates? Well, done is done, I guess :)
>
>
Agreed. Will not use RCs in the future.
>
> 8) Which of these many open staging Maven repositories is it you are
> planning to release? Although the voting thread is strictly over
> source release - it would be nice to know (I think those also should
> be subject to some checks), and drop the the others.
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
I think neither. The ones you see are just for testing and will be cleaned
up.
We are currently experiencing problems with Apache Maven when trying to
deploy to the repository. I can send another link once the issue is
resolved.
>
>
> 9) Due to the build errors I have not checked the dependency licenses,
> mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party fails with the above error as
> well.
>
Again, please rerun with Oracle JDK7. Ideally, devnotes should say
something about it (will mention this on the website).
>
> Build error:
>
> [ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR :
> [INFO] -------------------------------------------------------------
> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[20,1]
> package javafx.stage does not exist
> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[25,43]
> cannot find symbol
> symbol: class Stage
> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[27,21]
> cannot find symbol
> symbol: class Stage
> location: class org.apache.ignite.schema.ui.ModalDialog
> [ERROR] /tmp/92/
> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[34,27]
> cannot find symbol
> symbol: class Stage
> location: class org.apache.ignite.schema.ui.ModalDialog
>
>
> DEVNOTES.txt does not mention anything special about this. Is this
> related to javafx?
>
>
> Tested with Maven 3.3.1 on Open JDK 8 on Ubuntu 14.10/x64
>
> stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/
> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src$
> mvn -version
> Apache Maven 3.3.1 (cab6659f9874fa96462afef40fcf6bc033d58c1c;
> 2015-03-13T20:10:27+00:00)
> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
> Java version: 1.8.0_40-internal, vendor: Oracle Corporation
> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
> OS name: "linux", version: "3.16.0-33-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
> "unix"
>
>
> If I try again with Open JDK 7 instead I get:
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project ignite-schema-import: Could
> not resolve dependencies for project
> org.apache.ignite:ignite-schema-import:jar:1.0.0: The following
> artifacts could not be resolved:
> org.apache.ignite:ignite-core:jar:1.0.0, javafx:jfxrt:jar:1.7.0_75:
> Failure to find org.apache.ignite:ignite-core:jar:1.0.0 in
> https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2 was cached in the local
> repository, resolution will not be reattempted until the update
> interval of central has elapsed or updates are forced -> [Help 1]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 14:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > You did not include the hashes, so I will assume:
> >
> > stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/
> people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0$
> > cat *md5 *sha1
> > 401e8407bb262aacb1600bb1444488f9 incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
> > a8f643ffdc5b45101cf5a9ad5f19b9fce5a4099f incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
> >
> >
> > I would have expected KEYS to be in the version-independent folder, e.g.
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/ignite/KEYS
> >
> >
> > I would have expected the release candidate to have been uploaded to
> > ignite/ under
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
> > rather than at people.apache.org
> > (and then just do a svn move of the version folder after approval -
> > which pretty much guarantees that it's the correct files that were
> > voted over).
> >
> >
> > Verified:
> >
> > 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
> > 2)
> >
> > On 31 March 2015 at 02:38, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
> >>
> >> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
> >>
> >> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2
> votes
> >> are from the IPMC members)
> >>
> >> 2 +1 (IPMC)
> >> 5 +1 (PPMC)
> >>
> >> The dev list voting thread:
> >> http://s.apache.org/N5N
> >>
> >> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
> >>
> >> Please start voting.
> >>
> >> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
> >> 0 - don't care either way
> >> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stian Soiland-Reyes
> > Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> > http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
sorry, my send button was trigger happy..
+0 - due to build errors (see below)
Verified:
1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
2) MD5/SHA1 signatures
3) No binaries (except PNGs, test SSL certificates, PDF)
4) DISCLAIMER, LICENSE and NOTICE
5) rat plugin happy (mvn clean validate -Pcheck-licenses)
but:
6) FAILS mvn clean package -DskipTests (as DEVNOTES.txt says I
should run) -- see below
7) Which git tag is this?
https://github.com/apache/incubator-ignite/releases has a lot of RCs..
I will assume 'ignite-1.0.0' aka
5fc2cd053467e65872f796e11e3edd2e6017d80d aka
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-ignite.git;a=commit;h=5fc2cd053467e65872f796e11e3edd2e6017d80d
-- which matches 100% with the src.zip.
8) It would be good to avoid all those "RC RCs" as it's confusing to
have multiple levels of release candidates - in Apache, a Release
Candidate is this particular thing you are asking us to vote over.
(this might have been pointed out earlier). A pre-release can be
called anything else, like alpha, golden master, etc.
https://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/ignite/ignite-core/
http://archive.apache.org/dist/incubator/ignite/
contains 1.0.0-RC1/ and 1.0.0-RC3/ -- are these released release
candidates? Well, done is done, I guess :)
8) Which of these many open staging Maven repositories is it you are
planning to release? Although the voting thread is strictly over
source release - it would be nice to know (I think those also should
be subject to some checks), and drop the the others.
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/
9) Due to the build errors I have not checked the dependency licenses,
mvn license:aggregate-add-third-party fails with the above error as
well.
Build error:
[ERROR] COMPILATION ERROR :
[INFO] -------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] /tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[20,1]
package javafx.stage does not exist
[ERROR] /tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[25,43]
cannot find symbol
symbol: class Stage
[ERROR] /tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[27,21]
cannot find symbol
symbol: class Stage
location: class org.apache.ignite.schema.ui.ModalDialog
[ERROR] /tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src/modules/schema-import/src/main/java/org/apache/ignite/schema/ui/ModalDialog.java:[34,27]
cannot find symbol
symbol: class Stage
location: class org.apache.ignite.schema.ui.ModalDialog
DEVNOTES.txt does not mention anything special about this. Is this
related to javafx?
Tested with Maven 3.3.1 on Open JDK 8 on Ubuntu 14.10/x64
stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src$
mvn -version
Apache Maven 3.3.1 (cab6659f9874fa96462afef40fcf6bc033d58c1c;
2015-03-13T20:10:27+00:00)
Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
Java version: 1.8.0_40-internal, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
OS name: "linux", version: "3.16.0-33-generic", arch: "amd64", family: "unix"
If I try again with Open JDK 7 instead I get:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project ignite-schema-import: Could
not resolve dependencies for project
org.apache.ignite:ignite-schema-import:jar:1.0.0: The following
artifacts could not be resolved:
org.apache.ignite:ignite-core:jar:1.0.0, javafx:jfxrt:jar:1.7.0_75:
Failure to find org.apache.ignite:ignite-core:jar:1.0.0 in
https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2 was cached in the local
repository, resolution will not be reattempted until the update
interval of central has elapsed or updates are forced -> [Help 1]
On 31 March 2015 at 14:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> You did not include the hashes, so I will assume:
>
> stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0$
> cat *md5 *sha1
> 401e8407bb262aacb1600bb1444488f9 incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
> a8f643ffdc5b45101cf5a9ad5f19b9fce5a4099f incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
>
>
> I would have expected KEYS to be in the version-independent folder, e.g.
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/ignite/KEYS
>
>
> I would have expected the release candidate to have been uploaded to
> ignite/ under
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
> rather than at people.apache.org
> (and then just do a svn move of the version folder after approval -
> which pretty much guarantees that it's the correct files that were
> voted over).
>
>
> Verified:
>
> 1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
> 2)
>
> On 31 March 2015 at 02:38, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>>
>> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>>
>> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
>> are from the IPMC members)
>>
>> 2 +1 (IPMC)
>> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>>
>> The dev list voting thread:
>> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>>
>> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>>
>> Please start voting.
>>
>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
>> 0 - don't care either way
>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
> http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>.
You did not include the hashes, so I will assume:
stain@biggie-utopic:/tmp/92/people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0$
cat *md5 *sha1
401e8407bb262aacb1600bb1444488f9 incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
a8f643ffdc5b45101cf5a9ad5f19b9fce5a4099f incubator-ignite-1.0.0-src.zip
I would have expected KEYS to be in the version-independent folder, e.g.
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/ignite/KEYS
I would have expected the release candidate to have been uploaded to
ignite/ under
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/
rather than at people.apache.org
(and then just do a svn move of the version folder after approval -
which pretty much guarantees that it's the correct files that were
voted over).
Verified:
1) GPG signature matches BD656948 from KEYS
2)
On 31 March 2015 at 02:38, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>
> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>
> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
> are from the IPMC members)
>
> 2 +1 (IPMC)
> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>
> The dev list voting thread:
> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>
> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
--
Stian Soiland-Reyes
Apache Taverna (incubating), Apache Commons RDF (incubating)
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9842-9718
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
No worries - sorta easy to check, but wanted to make sure
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:18PM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> No it’s not. My apologies, I forgot to indicate that.
>
> -Taylor
>
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Taylor,
> >
> > is your vote binding? Trying to figure out the tally of the vote.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Cos
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:34AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> After some digging, the PPMC VOTE looks good.
> >>
> >> -Taylor
> >>
> >> On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:01 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> A few notes that come to mind:
> >>>
> >>> - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted.
> >>> - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link?
> >>> - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help.
> >>>
> >>> I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult.
> >>>
> >>> Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes.
> >>>
> >>> -Taylor
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
> >>>>
> >>>> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
> >>>>
> >>>> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
> >>>> are from the IPMC members)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2 +1 (IPMC)
> >>>> 5 +1 (PPMC)
> >>>>
> >>>> The dev list voting thread:
> >>>> http://s.apache.org/N5N
> >>>>
> >>>> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
> >>>>
> >>>> Please start voting.
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
> >>>> 0 - don't care either way
> >>>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
No it’s not. My apologies, I forgot to indicate that.
-Taylor
On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Taylor,
>
> is your vote binding? Trying to figure out the tally of the vote.
>
> Thanks!
> Cos
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:34AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> After some digging, the PPMC VOTE looks good.
>>
>> -Taylor
>>
>> On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:01 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A few notes that come to mind:
>>>
>>> - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted.
>>> - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link?
>>> - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help.
>>>
>>> I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult.
>>>
>>> Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes.
>>>
>>> -Taylor
>>>
>>> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>>>>
>>>> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
>>>> are from the IPMC members)
>>>>
>>>> 2 +1 (IPMC)
>>>> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>>>>
>>>> The dev list voting thread:
>>>> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>>>>
>>>> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>>>>
>>>> Please start voting.
>>>>
>>>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
>>>> 0 - don't care either way
>>>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Taylor,
is your vote binding? Trying to figure out the tally of the vote.
Thanks!
Cos
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:34AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> +1
>
> After some digging, the PPMC VOTE looks good.
>
> -Taylor
>
> On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:01 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A few notes that come to mind:
> >
> > - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted.
> > - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link?
> > - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help.
> >
> > I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult.
> >
> > Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes.
> >
> > -Taylor
> >
> > On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
> >>
> >> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
> >>
> >> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
> >> are from the IPMC members)
> >>
> >> 2 +1 (IPMC)
> >> 5 +1 (PPMC)
> >>
> >> The dev list voting thread:
> >> http://s.apache.org/N5N
> >>
> >> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> >> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
> >>
> >> Please start voting.
> >>
> >> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
> >> 0 - don't care either way
> >> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
+1
After some digging, the PPMC VOTE looks good.
-Taylor
On Mar 31, 2015, at 1:01 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A few notes that come to mind:
>
> - In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted.
> - Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link?
> - I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help.
>
> I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult.
>
> Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes.
>
> -Taylor
>
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>>
>> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>>
>> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
>> are from the IPMC members)
>>
>> 2 +1 (IPMC)
>> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>>
>> The dev list voting thread:
>> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>>
>> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>>
>> Please start voting.
>>
>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
>> 0 - don't care either way
>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
A few notes that come to mind:
- In the VOTE RESULT, it helps if you can name who voted.
- Can you include the git commit SHA of what is being voted on? As well as a link?
- I see the KEYS file is in the upload directory, but again, a direct link would help.
I don’t think any of the above would/should block a release. I only point them out because it makes reviewing a release more difficult.
Getting people to review a release can be hard. The easier you make it to review a release, the better your chance of getting the requisite binding +1 votes.
-Taylor
On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:38 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0.
>
> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>
> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC (note that 2 votes
> are from the IPMC members)
>
> 2 +1 (IPMC)
> 5 +1 (PPMC)
>
> The dev list voting thread:
> http://s.apache.org/N5N
>
> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/incubator-ignite-1.0.0/
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 release (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > I think it would be good form to let it go for a full 72 hours to give
> >> others the opportunity to vote.
> >> > I’d say give it another day, and be happy it’s likely to pass at this
> >> point.
> >> >
> >> > That 72 hour guideline/rule is there to allow everyone a chance to
> vote.
> >> > We’re all in different timezones and have differing amounts of time to
> >> devote to Apache work.
> >>
> >> Very strong +1 to the above. Rushing a vote is never a good thing.
> >>
> >
> > Got it. I guess no April-fools release for us :)
>
> I highly recommend this release candidate for April fools:
> http://swtch.com/r.zip
Not funny... took me 100 tries to realize that the unzipping will never end
:)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> P.S. http://research.swtch.com/zip
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I think it would be good form to let it go for a full 72 hours to give
>> others the opportunity to vote.
>> > I’d say give it another day, and be happy it’s likely to pass at this
>> point.
>> >
>> > That 72 hour guideline/rule is there to allow everyone a chance to vote.
>> > We’re all in different timezones and have differing amounts of time to
>> devote to Apache work.
>>
>> Very strong +1 to the above. Rushing a vote is never a good thing.
>>
>
> Got it. I guess no April-fools release for us :)
I highly recommend this release candidate for April fools:
http://swtch.com/r.zip
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. http://research.swtch.com/zip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it would be good form to let it go for a full 72 hours to give
> others the opportunity to vote.
> > I’d say give it another day, and be happy it’s likely to pass at this
> point.
> >
> > That 72 hour guideline/rule is there to allow everyone a chance to vote.
> > We’re all in different timezones and have differing amounts of time to
> devote to Apache work.
>
> Very strong +1 to the above. Rushing a vote is never a good thing.
>
Got it. I guess no April-fools release for us :)
>
> Also, +1 to the release (binding).
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:04 PM, P. Taylor Goetz <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it would be good form to let it go for a full 72 hours to give others the opportunity to vote.
> I’d say give it another day, and be happy it’s likely to pass at this point.
>
> That 72 hour guideline/rule is there to allow everyone a chance to vote.
> We’re all in different timezones and have differing amounts of time to devote to Apache work.
Very strong +1 to the above. Rushing a vote is never a good thing.
Also, +1 to the release (binding).
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by "P. Taylor Goetz" <pt...@gmail.com>.
I think it would be good form to let it go for a full 72 hours to give others the opportunity to vote. I’d say give it another day, and be happy it’s likely to pass at this point.
That 72 hour guideline/rule is there to allow everyone a chance to vote. We’re all in different timezones and have differing amounts of time to devote to Apache work.
-Taylor
On Apr 1, 2015, at 10:41 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> We got more than enough votes at this point (+4 binding). Would anyone have
> objections to close the vote today (after 48 hours)?
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:01 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 binding no Aprils fool.
>>
>> rgds
>> jan i
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> +1 binding
>>>
>>> I checked:
>>> - issues from last release fixed
>>> - hashes and signatures correct
>>> - has disclaimer
>>> - notice and license correct (but see discussion for documentation bug)
>>> - all source file have apache header
>>> - no unexpected binaries
>>> - can compile from source
>>>
>>> Minor issues. Please consider fixing these for next release.
>>> - release not placed on http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator [1]
>>> - release has "incubator" not "incubating" in the release name [2]
>>> - release notes refer to 1.0 and 1.0 RC3 which is confusing
>>> - mention required version of Java / suggested maven_opts
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> 1.
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>>> 2.
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>> <javascript:;>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
We got more than enough votes at this point (+4 binding). Would anyone have
objections to close the vote today (after 48 hours)?
D.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:01 PM, jan i <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 binding no Aprils fool.
>
> rgds
> jan i
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > +1 binding
> >
> > I checked:
> > - issues from last release fixed
> > - hashes and signatures correct
> > - has disclaimer
> > - notice and license correct (but see discussion for documentation bug)
> > - all source file have apache header
> > - no unexpected binaries
> > - can compile from source
> >
> > Minor issues. Please consider fixing these for next release.
> > - release not placed on http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator [1]
> > - release has "incubator" not "incubating" in the release name [2]
> > - release notes refer to 1.0 and 1.0 RC3 which is confusing
> > - mention required version of Java / suggested maven_opts
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1.
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
> > 2.
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:;>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by jan i <ja...@apache.org>.
+1 binding no Aprils fool.
rgds
jan i
On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 binding
>
> I checked:
> - issues from last release fixed
> - hashes and signatures correct
> - has disclaimer
> - notice and license correct (but see discussion for documentation bug)
> - all source file have apache header
> - no unexpected binaries
> - can compile from source
>
> Minor issues. Please consider fixing these for next release.
> - release not placed on http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator [1]
> - release has "incubator" not "incubating" in the release name [2]
> - release notes refer to 1.0 and 1.0 RC3 which is confusing
> - mention required version of Java / suggested maven_opts
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
> 2. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- issues from last release fixed
- hashes and signatures correct
- has disclaimer
- notice and license correct (but see discussion for documentation bug)
- all source file have apache header
- no unexpected binaries
- can compile from source
Minor issues. Please consider fixing these for next release.
- release not placed on http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator [1]
- release has "incubator" not "incubating" in the release name [2]
- release notes refer to 1.0 and 1.0 RC3 which is confusing
- mention required version of Java / suggested maven_opts
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
2. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Releases
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org