You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> on 2014/08/04 16:07:50 UTC
[VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
We've held a vote on drill-dev to release the 0.4.0-incubating release of
Apache Drill.
The vote thread can be found here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DKQURAMcS3RQJbUABSU4%3DDEGSewK2s4MAAidu4c%3DOjBg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
The vote passed with:
+6 binding
+7 non-binding
A summary email can be found here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCAKa9qDnyKYS%3D3qbv3%3DfUrcuuNvBKRcvPt4AgWojLhy4tr2ZYLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:
http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-0.4.0.rc1/
Please vote on this release.
Thanks,
Jacques
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 8 August 2014 18:12, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com> wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, I think that it is important that *all* dependency licenses be
>> documented in the source release. Speaking as a consumer, I need to know
>> what dependencies will come in when I compile the code. Marking the
>> dependencies as source inclusions or as compile time or as test
>> dependencies or as package dependencies is a fine thing to do, but my
>> strong feeling is that the license summary should be identical in the
>> source distribution as with the binary artifacts.
>
> That seems counter to the principle of the licensing documentation for
> a package reflecting the bundled bits and only the bundled bits,
> discussed many times on many lists.
+1
> The licensing documentation for the canonical source release should
> reflect the exact content of the canonical source release. The
> licensing documentation for any derived, downstream packages,
> including "convenience binaries" which get distributed on our mirrors,
> should reflect their own exact content. If derived packages bundle
> additional dependencies, it is likely that the licensing documentation
> will need to be different from that of the canonical source release.
+1
> It is not necessary to including information about non-bundled
> dependencies in the licensing documentation of our canonical source
> releases, because a consumer building a composite product can examine
> the licensing of each package in turn as it gets added. We have to
> ensure that Apache projects don't have any mandatory dependencies with
> problematic licenses, but it's not necessary or desirable to document
> the complete dependency tree including non-bundled dependencies. What
> if a requirement could be satisfied by multiple options with different
> licenses? It would not be good to try to enumerate all the possible
> configurations in our licensing documentation. The only sane option is
> to document only what is bundled.
+1 to ensuring that NOTICE and LICENSE only relate to the bundle in
which they are included.
However, I don't see why projects should not provide a full list of
dependencies somewhere else.
For example in a README or BUILDING file.
Maven site builds can include dependency info extracted from the pom.
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
Hi Ted,
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, I think that it is important that *all* dependency licenses be
> documented in the source release. Speaking as a consumer, I need to know
> what dependencies will come in when I compile the code. Marking the
> dependencies as source inclusions or as compile time or as test
> dependencies or as package dependencies is a fine thing to do, but my
> strong feeling is that the license summary should be identical in the
> source distribution as with the binary artifacts.
That seems counter to the principle of the licensing documentation for
a package reflecting the bundled bits and only the bundled bits,
discussed many times on many lists.
The licensing documentation for the canonical source release should
reflect the exact content of the canonical source release. The
licensing documentation for any derived, downstream packages,
including "convenience binaries" which get distributed on our mirrors,
should reflect their own exact content. If derived packages bundle
additional dependencies, it is likely that the licensing documentation
will need to be different from that of the canonical source release.
It is not necessary to including information about non-bundled
dependencies in the licensing documentation of our canonical source
releases, because a consumer building a composite product can examine
the licensing of each package in turn as it gets added. We have to
ensure that Apache projects don't have any mandatory dependencies with
problematic licenses, but it's not necessary or desirable to document
the complete dependency tree including non-bundled dependencies. What
if a requirement could be satisfied by multiple options with different
licenses? It would not be good to try to enumerate all the possible
configurations in our licensing documentation. The only sane option is
to document only what is bundled.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Also, I think that it is important that *all* dependency licenses be
documented in the source release. Speaking as a consumer, I need to know
what dependencies will come in when I compile the code. Marking the
dependencies as source inclusions or as compile time or as test
dependencies or as package dependencies is a fine thing to do, but my
strong feeling is that the license summary should be identical in the
source distribution as with the binary artifacts.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> One additional thought. As I'm thinking more about the NOTICE and LICENSE
> files I think it would be really helpful to have some reviews from you guys
> much earlier in the process than the next release vote. While the docs are
> helpful and we'll do our best, I'm skeptical we'll get it exactly right on
> our next attempt. Justin, would you be willing to review these changes
> once we get them up so that we can make sure we're not making other foolish
> mistakes?
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > Sorry I didn't see Henry and Justin's comments until just now. Per
> > Justin's primary concerns about the License stuff: I think we've just
> made
> > mistakes in the notice and license files as to exactly how we reference
> > things. All the category B licenses are mvn binary dependencies (per the
> > third party dependencies rules), not source inclusions. To address
> > Justin's concerns, I've created the following JIRAs which we'll fix
> > straight away: DRILL-1274 and DRILL-1275 along with adding additional
> > requirements to DRILL-1271 in addition to Henry's previous notes on
> NOTICE
> > file.
> >
> > Given the following:
> >
> > - The mistakes are issues with documentation as opposed to invalid
> > source inclusions
> > - The vote was held open for 72 hours before being called
> > - Release artifacts are already on the mirrors
> > - This is a developer preview release with small distribution designed
> > primarily to expand the contributor community
> > - We plan on doing another release within a month where these can be
> > corrected.
> >
> > I'm going to go forward with this release.
> >
> > Thanks again to everyone for all the helpful feedback. I believe we are
> > making good progress.
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for
> >> incubator.
> >> > But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to
> >> > include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this
> >> > could be blocker?
> >>
> >> Given it has 3 +1 votes and a result been called it's really up to the
> >> release manager. IMO it is a blocker, but at the very least I like to
> see a
> >> JIRA for it and it fixed for the next release. The LICENSE issues are
> also
> >> serious - but hopefully just a misunderstanding to what should go into a
> >> LICENSE file.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Justin
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Justin, would you be willing to review these changes
> once we get them up so that we can make sure we're not making other foolish
> mistakes?
Sure just ping me and I'll take a look - it's reasonably straight forward if you follow this [1]
Justin
1.http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
One additional thought. As I'm thinking more about the NOTICE and LICENSE
files I think it would be really helpful to have some reviews from you guys
much earlier in the process than the next release vote. While the docs are
helpful and we'll do our best, I'm skeptical we'll get it exactly right on
our next attempt. Justin, would you be willing to review these changes
once we get them up so that we can make sure we're not making other foolish
mistakes?
thanks,
Jacques
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Sorry I didn't see Henry and Justin's comments until just now. Per
> Justin's primary concerns about the License stuff: I think we've just made
> mistakes in the notice and license files as to exactly how we reference
> things. All the category B licenses are mvn binary dependencies (per the
> third party dependencies rules), not source inclusions. To address
> Justin's concerns, I've created the following JIRAs which we'll fix
> straight away: DRILL-1274 and DRILL-1275 along with adding additional
> requirements to DRILL-1271 in addition to Henry's previous notes on NOTICE
> file.
>
> Given the following:
>
> - The mistakes are issues with documentation as opposed to invalid
> source inclusions
> - The vote was held open for 72 hours before being called
> - Release artifacts are already on the mirrors
> - This is a developer preview release with small distribution designed
> primarily to expand the contributor community
> - We plan on doing another release within a month where these can be
> corrected.
>
> I'm going to go forward with this release.
>
> Thanks again to everyone for all the helpful feedback. I believe we are
> making good progress.
>
> Jacques
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> > Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for
>> incubator.
>> > But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to
>> > include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this
>> > could be blocker?
>>
>> Given it has 3 +1 votes and a result been called it's really up to the
>> release manager. IMO it is a blocker, but at the very least I like to see a
>> JIRA for it and it fixed for the next release. The LICENSE issues are also
>> serious - but hopefully just a misunderstanding to what should go into a
>> LICENSE file.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Justin
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
Hey guys,
Sorry I didn't see Henry and Justin's comments until just now. Per
Justin's primary concerns about the License stuff: I think we've just made
mistakes in the notice and license files as to exactly how we reference
things. All the category B licenses are mvn binary dependencies (per the
third party dependencies rules), not source inclusions. To address
Justin's concerns, I've created the following JIRAs which we'll fix
straight away: DRILL-1274 and DRILL-1275 along with adding additional
requirements to DRILL-1271 in addition to Henry's previous notes on NOTICE
file.
Given the following:
- The mistakes are issues with documentation as opposed to invalid
source inclusions
- The vote was held open for 72 hours before being called
- Release artifacts are already on the mirrors
- This is a developer preview release with small distribution designed
primarily to expand the contributor community
- We plan on doing another release within a month where these can be
corrected.
I'm going to go forward with this release.
Thanks again to everyone for all the helpful feedback. I believe we are
making good progress.
Jacques
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for
> incubator.
> > But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to
> > include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this
> > could be blocker?
>
> Given it has 3 +1 votes and a result been called it's really up to the
> release manager. IMO it is a blocker, but at the very least I like to see a
> JIRA for it and it fixed for the next release. The LICENSE issues are also
> serious - but hopefully just a misunderstanding to what should go into a
> LICENSE file.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for incubator.
> But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to
> include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this
> could be blocker?
Given it has 3 +1 votes and a result been called it's really up to the release manager. IMO it is a blocker, but at the very least I like to see a JIRA for it and it fixed for the next release. The LICENSE issues are also serious - but hopefully just a misunderstanding to what should go into a LICENSE file.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Ah, I saw disclaimer in the website [1] which I thought enough for incubator.
But checking the branding guide [2] seems like incubator need to
include DISCLAIMER file along with NOTICE and LICENSE files, so this
could be blocker?
I think that is the one that could be blocker, but other probably
could be deferred to next release given Drill open tickets for them?
Thanks for detail review Justin, need to update my check tool.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/drill/
[2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> (resending as it look like the original email got caught up in moderation)
>
> Hi
>
> -1 binding.
>
> There several issues with LICENSE and NOTICE that need to be fixed/explained before I'd vote +1. I am concerned about the category B licences in particular. The required DISCLAIMER file is also missing.
>
> - DISCLAIMER file missing
> - incorrect year in NOTICE file (should be 2014 not 2013)
> - make notice file more in line with standard NOTICE file [1]
> - LICENSE file is not correct - looks like quite a few things need to be removed as they are not actually bundled in the source artefact. The LICENSE file in the source artefact should only reference software that is actually bundled in the source release.
> - LICENSE file doesn't need to contain references to Apache licensed software only MIT and BSD software. Each bundled Apache software may modify the NOTICE file.
> - LICENSE issue "The compiled Apache Drill distribution includes the following sources/binaries." is incorrect as a source distribution shouldn't normally contain binaries.
> - LICENSE refers to CDDL licensed, CPL licensed, EPL licensed and MPL licensed software - all which are category B licences. Are these actually included in the source release and if so how? And if they are included why are they not in the NOTICE file (as per [2]) If not included why are these mentioned in the the LICENCES file at all?
>
> What's good:
> - artefact contains incubating
> - signatures and md5 good
> - no binary files in source release (other than a few files used for testing)
> - source files have apache header (although some testing .json and the like look to be missing headers)
> - can compile from source
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
> 2. http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
(resending as it look like the original email got caught up in moderation)
Hi
-1 binding.
There several issues with LICENSE and NOTICE that need to be fixed/explained before I'd vote +1. I am concerned about the category B licences in particular. The required DISCLAIMER file is also missing.
- DISCLAIMER file missing
- incorrect year in NOTICE file (should be 2014 not 2013)
- make notice file more in line with standard NOTICE file [1]
- LICENSE file is not correct - looks like quite a few things need to be removed as they are not actually bundled in the source artefact. The LICENSE file in the source artefact should only reference software that is actually bundled in the source release.
- LICENSE file doesn't need to contain references to Apache licensed software only MIT and BSD software. Each bundled Apache software may modify the NOTICE file.
- LICENSE issue "The compiled Apache Drill distribution includes the following sources/binaries." is incorrect as a source distribution shouldn't normally contain binaries.
- LICENSE refers to CDDL licensed, CPL licensed, EPL licensed and MPL licensed software - all which are category B licences. Are these actually included in the source release and if so how? And if they are included why are they not in the NOTICE file (as per [2]) If not included why are these mentioned in the the LICENCES file at all?
What's good:
- artefact contains incubating
- signatures and md5 good
- no binary files in source release (other than a few files used for testing)
- source files have apache header (although some testing .json and the like look to be missing headers)
- can compile from source
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Signatures files looks good
LICENSE looks good
NOTICE file needs to update year to 2014 => not a blocker but please
open ticket to track it
Version looks good
No 3rd party exec files
+1
- Henry
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> We've held a vote on drill-dev to release the 0.4.0-incubating release of
> Apache Drill.
>
> The vote thread can be found here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DKQURAMcS3RQJbUABSU4%3DDEGSewK2s4MAAidu4c%3DOjBg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The vote passed with:
> +6 binding
> +7 non-binding
>
> A summary email can be found here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCAKa9qDnyKYS%3D3qbv3%3DfUrcuuNvBKRcvPt4AgWojLhy4tr2ZYLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:
> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-0.4.0.rc1/
>
> Please vote on this release.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1 binding.
In the future, I would like to see you guys move to a synchronized release
cycle and only execute releases against their final versions and not
snapshots. Typically, you need to mess with Maven a lot to make this kind
of release even work.
John
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 3:44 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey Ted,
>
> Those SNAPSHOT dependencies are a bit misleading. Because Drill is so
> closely coupled to the Optiq and Parquet codebase, we need to generate
> separate artifacts. As part of doing monthly releases, it is unfeasible to
> bind Drill releases to incorporating of all patches into upstream projects.
> You can think of this as similar to how, for years, HBase released on top
> of a modified (non-released) Hadoop due to special requirements for append.
>
>
> As such, while slightly outside typical maven conventions, those SNAPSHOT
> are fixed and will not change in the future. The github hashes for each
> changeset are as follows:
>
> parquet-format:
>
> https://github.com/jacques-n/incubator-parquet-format/commit/7001502877e0cfbf81d429656989057ccc5fafb2
> parquet-mr:
>
> https://github.com/jaltekruse/parquet-mr/commit/737500cbabd009eee065058fff2ccc8cc806c5b2
> optiq:
>
> https://github.com/jacques-n/optiq/commit/4508b617bd3ffed2840055fe16e6684e1c0a35d7
>
> Hopefully this satisfies the need to document the source references for
> third party dependencies within the Apache Drill 0.4.0 release.
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I checked the source artifact and found several internal SNAPSHOT
> > dependencies (should be fixed) and one external SNAPSHOT dependency (must
> > be fixed).
> >
> > The good news is that the external SNAPSHOT dependency is parquet version
> > 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT. Since parquet 1.5.0 has been released, this should be a
> > trivial fix.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We've held a vote on drill-dev to release the 0.4.0-incubating release
> of
> > > Apache Drill.
> > >
> > > The vote thread can be found here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DKQURAMcS3RQJbUABSU4%3DDEGSewK2s4MAAidu4c%3DOjBg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >
> > > The vote passed with:
> > > +6 binding
> > > +7 non-binding
> > >
> > > A summary email can be found here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCAKa9qDnyKYS%3D3qbv3%3DfUrcuuNvBKRcvPt4AgWojLhy4tr2ZYLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >
> > > You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-0.4.0.rc1/
> > >
> > > Please vote on this release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jacques
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
Hmm....
That really is quite different. To add to the mix, the two projects in
question are in the process of entering the Apache incubator. In Optiq's
case, at least, that means that they have made what they have stated to be
their last non-Apache release, but are not yet in a position to make an
Apache release yet. That makes a temporary fork whose temporary nature is
somewhat non-standardly indicated by the SNAPSHOT enclitic much more
plausible.
+1 from me, then.
Thanks for the clarification.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey Ted,
>
> Those SNAPSHOT dependencies are a bit misleading. Because Drill is so
> closely coupled to the Optiq and Parquet codebase, we need to generate
> separate artifacts. As part of doing monthly releases, it is unfeasible to
> bind Drill releases to incorporating of all patches into upstream projects.
> You can think of this as similar to how, for years, HBase released on top
> of a modified (non-released) Hadoop due to special requirements for append.
>
>
> As such, while slightly outside typical maven conventions, those SNAPSHOT
> are fixed and will not change in the future. The github hashes for each
> changeset are as follows:
>
> parquet-format:
>
> https://github.com/jacques-n/incubator-parquet-format/commit/7001502877e0cfbf81d429656989057ccc5fafb2
> parquet-mr:
>
> https://github.com/jaltekruse/parquet-mr/commit/737500cbabd009eee065058fff2ccc8cc806c5b2
> optiq:
>
> https://github.com/jacques-n/optiq/commit/4508b617bd3ffed2840055fe16e6684e1c0a35d7
>
> Hopefully this satisfies the need to document the source references for
> third party dependencies within the Apache Drill 0.4.0 release.
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I checked the source artifact and found several internal SNAPSHOT
> > dependencies (should be fixed) and one external SNAPSHOT dependency (must
> > be fixed).
> >
> > The good news is that the external SNAPSHOT dependency is parquet version
> > 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT. Since parquet 1.5.0 has been released, this should be a
> > trivial fix.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We've held a vote on drill-dev to release the 0.4.0-incubating release
> of
> > > Apache Drill.
> > >
> > > The vote thread can be found here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DKQURAMcS3RQJbUABSU4%3DDEGSewK2s4MAAidu4c%3DOjBg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >
> > > The vote passed with:
> > > +6 binding
> > > +7 non-binding
> > >
> > > A summary email can be found here:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCAKa9qDnyKYS%3D3qbv3%3DfUrcuuNvBKRcvPt4AgWojLhy4tr2ZYLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> > >
> > > You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-0.4.0.rc1/
> > >
> > > Please vote on this release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jacques
> > >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
Hey Ted,
Those SNAPSHOT dependencies are a bit misleading. Because Drill is so
closely coupled to the Optiq and Parquet codebase, we need to generate
separate artifacts. As part of doing monthly releases, it is unfeasible to
bind Drill releases to incorporating of all patches into upstream projects.
You can think of this as similar to how, for years, HBase released on top
of a modified (non-released) Hadoop due to special requirements for append.
As such, while slightly outside typical maven conventions, those SNAPSHOT
are fixed and will not change in the future. The github hashes for each
changeset are as follows:
parquet-format:
https://github.com/jacques-n/incubator-parquet-format/commit/7001502877e0cfbf81d429656989057ccc5fafb2
parquet-mr:
https://github.com/jaltekruse/parquet-mr/commit/737500cbabd009eee065058fff2ccc8cc806c5b2
optiq:
https://github.com/jacques-n/optiq/commit/4508b617bd3ffed2840055fe16e6684e1c0a35d7
Hopefully this satisfies the need to document the source references for
third party dependencies within the Apache Drill 0.4.0 release.
thanks,
Jacques
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I checked the source artifact and found several internal SNAPSHOT
> dependencies (should be fixed) and one external SNAPSHOT dependency (must
> be fixed).
>
> The good news is that the external SNAPSHOT dependency is parquet version
> 1.5.0-SNAPSHOT. Since parquet 1.5.0 has been released, this should be a
> trivial fix.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We've held a vote on drill-dev to release the 0.4.0-incubating release of
> > Apache Drill.
> >
> > The vote thread can be found here:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DKQURAMcS3RQJbUABSU4%3DDEGSewK2s4MAAidu4c%3DOjBg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > The vote passed with:
> > +6 binding
> > +7 non-binding
> >
> > A summary email can be found here:
> >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCAKa9qDnyKYS%3D3qbv3%3DfUrcuuNvBKRcvPt4AgWojLhy4tr2ZYLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:
> > http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-0.4.0.rc1/
> >
> > Please vote on this release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jacques
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Apache Drill 0.4.0-incubating release
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
I checked the source artifact and found several internal SNAPSHOT
dependencies (should be fixed) and one external SNAPSHOT dependency (must
be fixed).
The good news is that the external SNAPSHOT dependency is parquet version
1.5.0-SNAPSHOT. Since parquet 1.5.0 has been released, this should be a
trivial fix.
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> We've held a vote on drill-dev to release the 0.4.0-incubating release of
> Apache Drill.
>
> The vote thread can be found here:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201407.mbox/%3CCAKa9qD%3DKQURAMcS3RQJbUABSU4%3DDEGSewK2s4MAAidu4c%3DOjBg%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> The vote passed with:
> +6 binding
> +7 non-binding
>
> A summary email can be found here:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-drill-dev/201408.mbox/%3CCAKa9qDnyKYS%3D3qbv3%3DfUrcuuNvBKRcvPt4AgWojLhy4tr2ZYLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> You can find the artifacts for the release at this location:
> http://people.apache.org/~jacques/apache-drill-0.4.0.rc1/
>
> Please vote on this release.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques
>