You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com> on 2021/06/09 08:47:07 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Hi All,
This will be our preview 1.0 release, this release contains both the source
code and binary to run the client. This will also be our first release
without DISCLAIMER-WIP but the regular disclaimer.
This release aims to get as much feedback as possible so we can remove some
final bugs before releasing 1.0.
Build instructions can be found in the README included.
Hop community vote and result threads:
Vote:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra0cb8d9286e3cabf3348f3544a6dc0e60dcdd87a58918a7c1a413d36%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
Result:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra6e1e447f5611bea927e8b41558d5ff790e8475e8e44629b7e872a14%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
The tag to be voted on is 0.99-rc1 (commit a29e5a7)
https://github.com/apache/incubator-hop/tree/0.99-rc1
The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hop/apache-hop-0.99-incubating-rc1/
The SHA512 Checksum for these artifacts is:
code:
ab62b90b311097fde622884cbcd3c67ccec75cfe0be2c70c7dd773528f34290994a0c3a166a1cecb04a5342d5eccb6953f258b87c0497e90e2ffd2c5f31723a3
client:
99f28e78d4795c19ae686094bcef6e75e875fcd213c967c868108afcf3fc0bcd83a268e2566aee122ae74c0dc54cffdd1a7e43bfcf7fcf23f3dda50487d5b644
Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9a8a628dd4f4aa1e
For more information about the contents of this release, see:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HOP/versions/12350036
Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99!
The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if
a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast.
[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99
[ ] +0 No opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
Best Regards,
Hans
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
As you know, originally there were essentially 2 different options for us
during this incubation when dealing with the existing codebase:
1) Get the code donated, granted, however you want to call it.
Unfortunately nobody could be found to even decide on this issue for all
sorts of reasons that are not very positive but recognizable when original
developers stop working on the codebase (fired, left, ...).
2) Perform a substantial amount of changes to the original codebase. In
retrospect this was something that needed to be done anyway since the
codebase is around 20 years old. But essentially that is the route that
was taken. It's actually pretty much all we've been doing: writing new
tools, GUI, re-writing code, replacing code, changing APIs and so on.
This process was reviewed and obviously completed as part of our
acceptance into the incubation process. It involved not hundreds but
thousands of files Justin. Nothing survived the refactoring onslaught but
obviously bits and pieces will be recognizable. It is what it is.
Now that being said, we do have permissions from a few developers regarding
the inclusion of their code. We'll see about getting a more formal SGA
there.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 12:24 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Understood. I'll remove the code. It's probably better to use a parser
> > library from a project like Apache Calcite anyway.
>
> I think you may have misunderstood. Sure removing the code is one option,
> bull all code from that repo would need to be removed not just that one
> file. My understanding is there a lot of other files that have been
> transferred across, this applies if they have been altered as well. We’re
> probably talking 100’s of files here? Why would getting a software grant be
> an issue?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Understood. I'll remove the code. It's probably better to use a parser
> library from a project like Apache Calcite anyway.
I think you may have misunderstood. Sure removing the code is one option, bull all code from that repo would need to be removed not just that one file. My understanding is there a lot of other files that have been transferred across, this applies if they have been altered as well. We’re probably talking 100’s of files here? Why would getting a software grant be an issue?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
Understood. I'll remove the code. It's probably better to use a parser
library from a project like Apache Calcite anyway.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:09 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The Simple SQL Parser that was included recently and where we had the one
> > file with incorrect header was included for completeness sake but it was
> > the notable exception I think. But even that code needed refactoring,
> > cleanup and actually quite a bit of work to port over.
>
> Even if something requires changes, it generally stays with the same
> header and license as the original. [1] Only once major changes have been
> made should the (P)PMC consider changing the license. It this case I think
> the best way forward (but not the only solution) is to donated that code in
> the external repo as a software grant.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
--
Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
*✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
☎ +32486972937
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> The Simple SQL Parser that was included recently and where we had the one
> file with incorrect header was included for completeness sake but it was
> the notable exception I think. But even that code needed refactoring,
> cleanup and actually quite a bit of work to port over.
Even if something requires changes, it generally stays with the same header and license as the original. [1] Only once major changes have been made should the (P)PMC consider changing the license. It this case I think the best way forward (but not the only solution) is to donated that code in the external repo as a software grant.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
Just a final note on the "foreign code" problem. It's literally impossible
to now simply include anything from the original source code. The codebase
and API of Apace Hop have drifted so far away from where we once were that
for new feature requests (like for example the recent addition of Parquet
File Input/Ouput transforms) it's simply useless to even look at any
existing code. It's just faster to write new functionality, also because
the API is much simpler and cleaner now.
The Simple SQL Parser that was included recently and where we had the one
file with incorrect header was included for completeness sake but it was
the notable exception I think. But even that code needed refactoring,
cleanup and actually quite a bit of work to port over. I'd be happy to
throw that code back out if anyone feels it's needed. In this discussion I
just haven't seen a real reason for it though. I guess I just don't
understand the issue.
On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 8:44 AM Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The vote has ended, thank you all for the feedback.
>
> As you pointed out, were it only the header issue in hpl/hwf it would have
> been an option, the foreign code is a bigger problem.
> I will go back to the dev list to discuss creating rc2.
>
> Cheers,
> Hans
>
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 02:02, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I suggest you discuss this with you mentors and together come up with the
> > best approach.
> >
> > There's a higher bar for release without the work in progress disclaimer.
> > I had noticed the issue in a previous release but I didn’t say anything
> > about it on the assumption that it wold be corrected once the WIP
> > disclaimer was gone, apologies for that.
> >
> > Also I’d like to point out that my -1 vote is not a veto, a release only
> > needs 3 +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. As the vote currently
> > stands, the release manager can decide if the license and header issues
> are
> > serious enough to not release this. I would be more concerned abut the
> > files that have incorrect ASF headers and clarifying the license of those
> > files than the missing headers.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Justin
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
The vote has ended, thank you all for the feedback.
As you pointed out, were it only the header issue in hpl/hwf it would have
been an option, the foreign code is a bigger problem.
I will go back to the dev list to discuss creating rc2.
Cheers,
Hans
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 02:02, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest you discuss this with you mentors and together come up with the
> best approach.
>
> There's a higher bar for release without the work in progress disclaimer.
> I had noticed the issue in a previous release but I didn’t say anything
> about it on the assumption that it wold be corrected once the WIP
> disclaimer was gone, apologies for that.
>
> Also I’d like to point out that my -1 vote is not a veto, a release only
> needs 3 +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. As the vote currently
> stands, the release manager can decide if the license and header issues are
> serious enough to not release this. I would be more concerned abut the
> files that have incorrect ASF headers and clarifying the license of those
> files than the missing headers.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
I suggest you discuss this with you mentors and together come up with the best approach.
There's a higher bar for release without the work in progress disclaimer. I had noticed the issue in a previous release but I didn’t say anything about it on the assumption that it wold be corrected once the WIP disclaimer was gone, apologies for that.
Also I’d like to point out that my -1 vote is not a veto, a release only needs 3 +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. As the vote currently stands, the release manager can decide if the license and header issues are serious enough to not release this. I would be more concerned abut the files that have incorrect ASF headers and clarifying the license of those files than the missing headers.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by "Matt Casters (i-Bridge)" <ma...@ibridge.be>.
For me I think it's been too frustrating because of a lack of vacation and
the whole pandemic, more than the technical issues.
In the end, this is not that big of a deal I think:
1) add an option through an environment variable like
HOP_LICENSE_HEADER_FILE
2) create a file with the ASF header in it somewhere under
integration-tests/
3) remove .hpl/.hwf from the RAT exclusions
4) Configure the integration test hop-config.json files to point the
variable to the header file.
I couldn't figure out how to update the copyright in Idea for .hpl/.hwf
files but I'm sure a global first replace should do the trick here.
The issue of the old XML and metadata Injection API still being around as
we push towards 1.0 is still around though. It's nagging in the back of my
mind. I would still love to hear your opinions about it.
Cheers,
Matt
Op zo 13 jun. 2021 om 11:12 schreef Bart Maertens <ba...@know.bi>:
> Hi,
>
> What I don't get about this whole discussion is that we already had 169 hpl
> and hwf files in the 0.70 release, and these files weren't even mentioned
> in the reviews.
> Now that we have about 400 hpl/hwf files in the 0.99 release, this
> is/becomes an issue.
> I'm sure we'll sort this out, but if this was detected and discussed sooner
> (0.70), that could have saved us all a lot of time, energy and, quite
> frankly, frustration.
>
> Maybe even more importantly, how do we know our current code base doesn't
> have any other problems that may only pop up in future releases?
>
> Regards,
> Bart
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:35 PM Matt Casters
> <ma...@neo4j.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > After thinking about it some more I really believe strongly that our
> > developers should have an easy time adding more integration tests. It's
> > really critical to our project in the longer term.
> > Manually editing XML files to copy/paste an ASF header in there can not
> be
> > part of that experience. It's simply out of the question.
> > I don't see the same requirement for other Apache projects that have
> .avro
> > or .parquet files as part of their test-suites. The obvious reason being
> > that folks are not really opening up these file formats with a text
> > editor... just like we never do this with .hpl/.hwf files. So we're just
> > being punished for having chosen an XML format.
> >
> > Since we've exhausted all other possibilities I'll start the discussion
> on
> > dev to move to a different file format for our metadata.
> >
> > All the best,
> > Matt
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:09 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused, and I may be missing some context here. If the
> > work
> > > a part of an ASF project, why do you need to include a copyright
> > statements
> > > anywhere? If the code is not part of the project then we do need to
> know
> > > the license and copyright owner. While this might be a good place to
> > > include it, it would still also need to go in the LICENSE file, so
> that a
> > > duplication of work and something that could easily get out of sync.
> > >
> > > IMO (and there may be there ways of dealing with this) just get the
> > > contributors to sign ICLAs so there no issue with their contributions
> and
> > > there’s no issues with the contents of the LICENSE file or indeed
> > licensing.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards,
> > > Justin
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
> > *✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
> > ☎ +32486972937
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Bart Maertens <ba...@know.bi>.
Hi,
What I don't get about this whole discussion is that we already had 169 hpl
and hwf files in the 0.70 release, and these files weren't even mentioned
in the reviews.
Now that we have about 400 hpl/hwf files in the 0.99 release, this
is/becomes an issue.
I'm sure we'll sort this out, but if this was detected and discussed sooner
(0.70), that could have saved us all a lot of time, energy and, quite
frankly, frustration.
Maybe even more importantly, how do we know our current code base doesn't
have any other problems that may only pop up in future releases?
Regards,
Bart
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 10:35 PM Matt Casters
<ma...@neo4j.com.invalid> wrote:
> After thinking about it some more I really believe strongly that our
> developers should have an easy time adding more integration tests. It's
> really critical to our project in the longer term.
> Manually editing XML files to copy/paste an ASF header in there can not be
> part of that experience. It's simply out of the question.
> I don't see the same requirement for other Apache projects that have .avro
> or .parquet files as part of their test-suites. The obvious reason being
> that folks are not really opening up these file formats with a text
> editor... just like we never do this with .hpl/.hwf files. So we're just
> being punished for having chosen an XML format.
>
> Since we've exhausted all other possibilities I'll start the discussion on
> dev to move to a different file format for our metadata.
>
> All the best,
> Matt
>
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:09 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a little confused, and I may be missing some context here. If the
> work
> > a part of an ASF project, why do you need to include a copyright
> statements
> > anywhere? If the code is not part of the project then we do need to know
> > the license and copyright owner. While this might be a good place to
> > include it, it would still also need to go in the LICENSE file, so that a
> > duplication of work and something that could easily get out of sync.
> >
> > IMO (and there may be there ways of dealing with this) just get the
> > contributors to sign ICLAs so there no issue with their contributions and
> > there’s no issues with the contents of the LICENSE file or indeed
> licensing.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Justin
>
>
>
> --
> Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
> *✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
> ☎ +32486972937
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
After thinking about it some more I really believe strongly that our
developers should have an easy time adding more integration tests. It's
really critical to our project in the longer term.
Manually editing XML files to copy/paste an ASF header in there can not be
part of that experience. It's simply out of the question.
I don't see the same requirement for other Apache projects that have .avro
or .parquet files as part of their test-suites. The obvious reason being
that folks are not really opening up these file formats with a text
editor... just like we never do this with .hpl/.hwf files. So we're just
being punished for having chosen an XML format.
Since we've exhausted all other possibilities I'll start the discussion on
dev to move to a different file format for our metadata.
All the best,
Matt
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:09 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a little confused, and I may be missing some context here. If the work
> a part of an ASF project, why do you need to include a copyright statements
> anywhere? If the code is not part of the project then we do need to know
> the license and copyright owner. While this might be a good place to
> include it, it would still also need to go in the LICENSE file, so that a
> duplication of work and something that could easily get out of sync.
>
> IMO (and there may be there ways of dealing with this) just get the
> contributors to sign ICLAs so there no issue with their contributions and
> there’s no issues with the contents of the LICENSE file or indeed licensing.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
--
Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
*✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
☎ +32486972937
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Bart Maertens <ba...@know.bi>.
Hi,
What Matt was pointing at is to include a <license> (or <copyright>, but
let's forget about that for now) element in the XML documents that the hpl
and hwf files are.
We could do this by including an option in Hop Gui (our visual IDE that
generates the hpl and hwf files) to include the ASF header for the
integration test and sample hpl and hwf files.
Outside of our code repository, users could use that functionality to
include their own header or copyright to the hpl and hwf files they create.
Those files would never end up in our repository, so that is out of scope
for this discussion.
Regards,
Bart
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:09 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a little confused, and I may be missing some context here. If the work
> a part of an ASF project, why do you need to include a copyright statements
> anywhere? If the code is not part of the project then we do need to know
> the license and copyright owner. While this might be a good place to
> include it, it would still also need to go in the LICENSE file, so that a
> duplication of work and something that could easily get out of sync.
>
> IMO (and there may be there ways of dealing with this) just get the
> contributors to sign ICLAs so there no issue with their contributions and
> there’s no issues with the contents of the LICENSE file or indeed licensing.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
I'm a little confused, and I may be missing some context here. If the work a part of an ASF project, why do you need to include a copyright statements anywhere? If the code is not part of the project then we do need to know the license and copyright owner. While this might be a good place to include it, it would still also need to go in the LICENSE file, so that a duplication of work and something that could easily get out of sync.
IMO (and there may be there ways of dealing with this) just get the contributors to sign ICLAs so there no issue with their contributions and there’s no issues with the contents of the LICENSE file or indeed licensing.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
Let's set the past aside for a moment. The last thing I want is to make
this in any way personal. I have nothing but appreciation for everything
you've all done for our project.
So what this comes down to is that we need to engineer our way out of the
fact that Hop pipeline and workflow files (.hpl/.hwf) are both user and
developer generated.
We also have plans to move from XML to JSON (or other file formats) in the
(near) future. I don't disagree with Justin on the fact that we want to
express that the unit test files are part of an ASF body of work. There is
the added problem of the fact that these very users and developers almost
never look at the file content in XML format hiding the ASF header for all
intents and purposes.
So here is a proposal: would it be OK to add an extra "<copyright>" or
"<license>" field in the contents of the XML (and later JSON, ...)? That
way we can add a feature in the GUI to allow users to actually see and
modify the ASF header content and it would also work for the other file
formats we have in mind. Adding a feature to set the default ASF in the
GUI would also be quite easy.
This would then move from a problem to a worthy feature addition since this
way Hop users can add their own copyright header to the pipeline and
workflow files they create if they feel like they need to.
Cheers,
Matt
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:02 AM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Well Justin, these files are typically generated by our software. It
> would
> > not be OK to force the license into all files since that wouldn't be
> > appropriate and right since we don't force Apache copyright on the work
> of
> > others.
>
> The ASF header doesn’t include a copyright line and the ALv2 license
> doesn’t ask to transfer copyright so I’m not sure what you mean by the
> above. If those files are in an ASF repo they they need to be (in general)
> covered by a software grant, ICLA, CCLA etc or be 3rd party file with a
> compatible license. What you say above suggests they are actually 3rd party
> files, the work of others outside the project? If they are 3rd party files
> then that should be made clear. [2]
>
> > Without that possibility we're down to manually editing the files
> > every time they are created or modified in the slightest. I don't see
> that
> > as a valid option.
>
> I would assume whatever generates them can generate them with a header?
> Are all of these files generated or not?
>
> > That evaluation was made before. Now it just feels like one more rule we
> > have to deal with that just comes out of the blue.
>
> Can you please point me to this conversation on your mailing list as I was
> unable to find it. I did find this [1]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1.
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rdb61e0df4ac921dc3af3e71b7971a20e9222016d9c02244bccfb3892%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> 2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> That specific unit test can be found here [1]
Thanks for that. I assume the other files there [1] were moved and their headers changed?
Kind Regards,
Justin
1. https://github.com/pentaho/pdi-dataservice-plugin/tree/master/pdi-dataservice-client/src/test/java/org/pentaho/di/core/sql
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
That specific unit test can be found here [1], but we will strip out
everything to move forward.
Kind regards,
Hans
[1]
https://github.com/pentaho/pdi-dataservice-plugin/blob/master/pdi-dataservice-client/src/test/java/org/pentaho/di/core/sql/SQLFieldsUnitTest.java
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 11:03, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the information.
>
> > There are more files that have altered headers (though all with apache
> 2.0
> > license) and are adapted from the following repository [1],
>
> That is unfortunate, both in changing the headers and that code doesn't
> have a clear license. 3rd party headers, even if they are Apache licensed
> should not be altered and without a clear license that code should have
> never been put into a release.
>
> Also From a quick glance I cannot see the code I noticed in the release in
> there. I could have missed it, or is it from another repository?
>
> > If we were to list product and version it would point to the same
> > product/version covered by our initial import. It has no separate
> > LICENSE/NOTICE file as it was never released standalone.
>
> One way to deal with this would be to donate that code via a software
> grant.
>
> > We could have a discussion to add the header to the code that
> > generates these files but my opinion is that it would clutter the files
> for
> > our users and bloat the format.
>
>
> I suggest you have that discussion. Files can get separated from their
> releases, and if they have no header saying what license they are under it
> can make things difficult. There are only few exceptions to this ASF policy
> [1]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Thanks for the information.
> There are more files that have altered headers (though all with apache 2.0
> license) and are adapted from the following repository [1],
That is unfortunate, both in changing the headers and that code doesn't have a clear license. 3rd party headers, even if they are Apache licensed should not be altered and without a clear license that code should have never been put into a release.
Also From a quick glance I cannot see the code I noticed in the release in there. I could have missed it, or is it from another repository?
> If we were to list product and version it would point to the same
> product/version covered by our initial import. It has no separate
> LICENSE/NOTICE file as it was never released standalone.
One way to deal with this would be to donate that code via a software grant.
> We could have a discussion to add the header to the code that
> generates these files but my opinion is that it would clutter the files for
> our users and bloat the format.
I suggest you have that discussion. Files can get separated from their releases, and if they have no header saying what license they are under it can make things difficult. There are only few exceptions to this ASF policy [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Justin,
There are more files that have altered headers (though all with apache 2.0
license) and are adapted from the following repository [1], bits and pieces
were used and adapted to our needs, this repository is a module that was
bundled with the original source we started from it has no separate release
and versions though it was not in our initial code import we assumed it was
covered. If we were to list product and version it would point to the same
product/version covered by our initial import. It has no separate
LICENSE/NOTICE file as it was never released standalone.
For the hpl/hwf files, we could add a script to include the header in the
files added to our repository. These files are not man-made but generated
by our application. Compared to OpenOffice for example, these are our
".odf" files. We could have a discussion to add the header to the code that
generates these files but my opinion is that it would clutter the files for
our users and bloat the format.
Kind regards,
Hans
[1] https://github.com/pentaho/pdi-dataservice-plugin
On Sat, 12 Jun 2021 at 02:23, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,’
>
> Perhaps this will help: A software grant / initial donation consists of a
> set of files, their 3rd party headers will be replaced with ASF ones and
> that noted in the NOTICE file. If any other files 3rd party files, were
> then copied into the same ASF repo they should retain their original 3rd
> party header and their details mention in LICENSE. This may also requires
> some changes to NOTICE but these would be different to changed needed from
> the initial donation.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,’
Perhaps this will help: A software grant / initial donation consists of a set of files, their 3rd party headers will be replaced with ASF ones and that noted in the NOTICE file. If any other files 3rd party files, were then copied into the same ASF repo they should retain their original 3rd party header and their details mention in LICENSE. This may also requires some changes to NOTICE but these would be different to changed needed from the initial donation.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Well Justin, these files are typically generated by our software. It would
> not be OK to force the license into all files since that wouldn't be
> appropriate and right since we don't force Apache copyright on the work of
> others.
The ASF header doesn’t include a copyright line and the ALv2 license doesn’t ask to transfer copyright so I’m not sure what you mean by the above. If those files are in an ASF repo they they need to be (in general) covered by a software grant, ICLA, CCLA etc or be 3rd party file with a compatible license. What you say above suggests they are actually 3rd party files, the work of others outside the project? If they are 3rd party files then that should be made clear. [2]
> Without that possibility we're down to manually editing the files
> every time they are created or modified in the slightest. I don't see that
> as a valid option.
I would assume whatever generates them can generate them with a header? Are all of these files generated or not?
> That evaluation was made before. Now it just feels like one more rule we
> have to deal with that just comes out of the blue.
Can you please point me to this conversation on your mailing list as I was unable to find it. I did find this [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rdb61e0df4ac921dc3af3e71b7971a20e9222016d9c02244bccfb3892%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
2. https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
Well Justin, these files are typically generated by our software. It would
not be OK to force the license into all files since that wouldn't be
appropriate and right since we don't force Apache copyright on the work of
others. Without that possibility we're down to manually editing the files
every time they are created or modified in the slightest. I don't see that
as a valid option.
So I guess those are good reasons why.
That evaluation was made before. Now it just feels like one more rule we
have to deal with that just comes out of the blue.
If you (=the wonderful people in this list) really want us to script some
process on Jenkins that force-feeds the header into the .hpl/.hwf files
we'll do so though. It's just a bit frustrating to be honest.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:54 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > We see integration tests as an even more important and integral part of
> the
> > source code compared to unit tests since they offer so much more value in
> > ensuring that functionality and compatibility remain the same when we
> push
> > our software forward.
>
> So in that case they should have ASF header on them. I don’t see why
> integration tests shod be excused from this and it make the release hard to
> review.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
--
Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
*✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
☎ +32486972937
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> We see integration tests as an even more important and integral part of the
> source code compared to unit tests since they offer so much more value in
> ensuring that functionality and compatibility remain the same when we push
> our software forward.
So in that case they should have ASF header on them. I don’t see why integration tests shod be excused from this and it make the release hard to review.
Kind Regards,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Matt Casters <ma...@neo4j.com.INVALID>.
We see integration tests as an even more important and integral part of the
source code compared to unit tests since they offer so much more value in
ensuring that functionality and compatibility remain the same when we push
our software forward. It gives us the freedom to continue progressing in a
safe way. That is why I think that splitting these tests off into another
repository is a bad idea and the same goes for documentation and the
samples really. We really want and need to keep everything in sync with
code changes.
We hope to have hundreds of extra .hpl/.hwf files for testing and samples
in the future.
Our mentors in the past thought it was not required to add license headers
for these "user-files" hence their exclusion from the RAT checks.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 10:51 AM Hans Van Akelyen <
hans.van.akelyen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> That file should be switched to the standard ASF header and is part of the
> original code and covered by the notice file.
>
> As for the no header in hpl and hwf files, these are files created using
> the application and are used for samples and for our integration testing
> framework. This framework is an extension on our unit tests mainly used to
> see if all functionality is working and that we have no regressions.
> As they are created using the application no header is included, they are
> not manually created files.
>
> Cheers,
> Hans
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 09:36, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > -1 (binding)
> >
> > This 3rd party file [1] is not mentioned in LICENSE. While this is just
> > one file my concern is that that this may indicate a bigger issue where
> > headers of 3rd party files have been changed.
> >
> > I checked:
> > - incubating in name
> > - signatures and hash are fine
> > - LICENSE is missing a mention from a 3rd party file
> > - No unexpected binary files
> > - There is quite a number of files without ASF headers I assume it could
> > be added to some of these (e.g. .hpl or .hwf files)
> > - Didn't compile from source
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Justin
> >
> > 1. ./core/src/test/java/org/apache/hop/core/sql/SqlFieldsUnitTest.java
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
--
Neo4j Chief Solutions Architect
*✉ *matt.casters@neo4j.com
☎ +32486972937
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> It wasn't part of the software grant so we were just following the bundling
> apache licensed 2.0 code route as explained here [1].
See [1] "However, for completeness it is useful to list the products and their versions, as is done for products under other licenses.” Common practice is that you list any ALv2 licensed code in your LICENSE file. Also if the code base if came from has a NOTICE file you may need to alter your NOTICE file as well. Can you point to the code base / repository it come from?
It still seems odd to me that only this one file has come across in this fashion, all of those files in that directory didn’t exist in the previous release where did they come from? Have their headers been altered?
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Justin,
It wasn't part of the software grant so we were just following the bundling
apache licensed 2.0 code route as explained here [1].
No addition to the LICENSE was needed as the code already was Apache 2
licensed. As the necessary mentions already are in our notice file, no
change was needed there either.
Can you elaborate on what isn't done correctly as described in [1]?
Kind Regards,
Hans
[1] https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 14:51, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> HI,
>
> > That file should be switched to the standard ASF header and is part of
> the
> > original code and covered by the notice file.
>
> Except it wasn’t in the previous release and I assume wasn’t part of the
> original software grant.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> That file should be switched to the standard ASF header and is part of the
> original code and covered by the notice file.
Except it wasn’t in the previous release and I assume wasn’t part of the original software grant.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>.
Hi Justin,
That file should be switched to the standard ASF header and is part of the
original code and covered by the notice file.
As for the no header in hpl and hwf files, these are files created using
the application and are used for samples and for our integration testing
framework. This framework is an extension on our unit tests mainly used to
see if all functionality is working and that we have no regressions.
As they are created using the application no header is included, they are
not manually created files.
Cheers,
Hans
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 09:36, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding)
>
> This 3rd party file [1] is not mentioned in LICENSE. While this is just
> one file my concern is that that this may indicate a bigger issue where
> headers of 3rd party files have been changed.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hash are fine
> - LICENSE is missing a mention from a 3rd party file
> - No unexpected binary files
> - There is quite a number of files without ASF headers I assume it could
> be added to some of these (e.g. .hpl or .hwf files)
> - Didn't compile from source
>
> Kind Regards,
> Justin
>
> 1. ./core/src/test/java/org/apache/hop/core/sql/SqlFieldsUnitTest.java
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
-1 (binding)
This 3rd party file [1] is not mentioned in LICENSE. While this is just one file my concern is that that this may indicate a bigger issue where headers of 3rd party files have been changed.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hash are fine
- LICENSE is missing a mention from a 3rd party file
- No unexpected binary files
- There is quite a number of files without ASF headers I assume it could be added to some of these (e.g. .hpl or .hwf files)
- Didn't compile from source
Kind Regards,
Justin
1. ./core/src/test/java/org/apache/hop/core/sql/SqlFieldsUnitTest.java
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by fp...@apache.org.
Forwarding my PPMC vote
+1 (binding)
Good job to all the Hop team!
regards,
François
fpapon@apache.org
Le 09/06/2021 à 10:47, Hans Van Akelyen a écrit :
> Hi All,
>
> This will be our preview 1.0 release, this release contains both the source
> code and binary to run the client. This will also be our first release
> without DISCLAIMER-WIP but the regular disclaimer.
>
> This release aims to get as much feedback as possible so we can remove some
> final bugs before releasing 1.0.
>
> Build instructions can be found in the README included.
>
> Hop community vote and result threads:
> Vote:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra0cb8d9286e3cabf3348f3544a6dc0e60dcdd87a58918a7c1a413d36%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> Result:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra6e1e447f5611bea927e8b41558d5ff790e8475e8e44629b7e872a14%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
>
> The tag to be voted on is 0.99-rc1 (commit a29e5a7)
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hop/tree/0.99-rc1
>
> The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hop/apache-hop-0.99-incubating-rc1/
>
> The SHA512 Checksum for these artifacts is:
> code:
> ab62b90b311097fde622884cbcd3c67ccec75cfe0be2c70c7dd773528f34290994a0c3a166a1cecb04a5342d5eccb6953f258b87c0497e90e2ffd2c5f31723a3
>
> client:
> 99f28e78d4795c19ae686094bcef6e75e875fcd213c967c868108afcf3fc0bcd83a268e2566aee122ae74c0dc54cffdd1a7e43bfcf7fcf23f3dda50487d5b644
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9a8a628dd4f4aa1e
>
> For more information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HOP/versions/12350036
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99!
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if
> a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99
> [ ] +0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> Best Regards,
> Hans
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Kevin Ratnasekera <dj...@gmail.com>.
+1 ( binding )
I checked the following.
- Incubating in name.
- PGP Signatures.
- SHA512 Checksums.
- DISCLAIMER exists.
- LICENSE and NOTICE are fine.
- Maven Build passes on MacOS. ( Maven - 3.6.3 JAVA - AdoptOpenJDK Java
1.8.0_252 ).
Regards
Kevin
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 11:20 PM Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Forwarding my vote from the PPMC poll:
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 5:54 AM Xun Liu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > +1 (non-binding) from me, I have checked the following items:
> >
> > - Incubating in name
> > - NOTICE is fine
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - All links are valid
> > - No unexpected binary files
> > - All ASF files have ASF headers
> >
> > Best regards
> > Xun Liu
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:47 PM Hans Van Akelyen <
> hans.van.akelyen@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > This will be our preview 1.0 release, this release contains both the
> source
> > > code and binary to run the client. This will also be our first release
> > > without DISCLAIMER-WIP but the regular disclaimer.
> > >
> > > This release aims to get as much feedback as possible so we can remove
> some
> > > final bugs before releasing 1.0.
> > >
> > > Build instructions can be found in the README included.
> > >
> > > Hop community vote and result threads:
> > > Vote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra0cb8d9286e3cabf3348f3544a6dc0e60dcdd87a58918a7c1a413d36%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> > > Result:
> > >
> > >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra6e1e447f5611bea927e8b41558d5ff790e8475e8e44629b7e872a14%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> > >
> > > The tag to be voted on is 0.99-rc1 (commit a29e5a7)
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hop/tree/0.99-rc1
> > >
> > > The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> > >
> > >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hop/apache-hop-0.99-incubating-rc1/
> > >
> > > The SHA512 Checksum for these artifacts is:
> > > code:
> > >
> > >
> ab62b90b311097fde622884cbcd3c67ccec75cfe0be2c70c7dd773528f34290994a0c3a166a1cecb04a5342d5eccb6953f258b87c0497e90e2ffd2c5f31723a3
> > >
> > > client:
> > >
> > >
> 99f28e78d4795c19ae686094bcef6e75e875fcd213c967c868108afcf3fc0bcd83a268e2566aee122ae74c0dc54cffdd1a7e43bfcf7fcf23f3dda50487d5b644
> > >
> > > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > >
> https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9a8a628dd4f4aa1e
> > >
> > > For more information about the contents of this release, see:
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HOP/versions/12350036
> > >
> > > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99!
> > >
> > > The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if
> > > a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast.
> > >
> > > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99
> > > [ ] +0 No opinion
> > > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Hans
> > >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>.
Forwarding my vote from the PPMC poll:
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 5:54 AM Xun Liu <li...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 (non-binding) from me, I have checked the following items:
>
> - Incubating in name
> - NOTICE is fine
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - All links are valid
> - No unexpected binary files
> - All ASF files have ASF headers
>
> Best regards
> Xun Liu
>
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:47 PM Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This will be our preview 1.0 release, this release contains both the source
> > code and binary to run the client. This will also be our first release
> > without DISCLAIMER-WIP but the regular disclaimer.
> >
> > This release aims to get as much feedback as possible so we can remove some
> > final bugs before releasing 1.0.
> >
> > Build instructions can be found in the README included.
> >
> > Hop community vote and result threads:
> > Vote:
> >
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra0cb8d9286e3cabf3348f3544a6dc0e60dcdd87a58918a7c1a413d36%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> > Result:
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra6e1e447f5611bea927e8b41558d5ff790e8475e8e44629b7e872a14%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The tag to be voted on is 0.99-rc1 (commit a29e5a7)
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hop/tree/0.99-rc1
> >
> > The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hop/apache-hop-0.99-incubating-rc1/
> >
> > The SHA512 Checksum for these artifacts is:
> > code:
> >
> > ab62b90b311097fde622884cbcd3c67ccec75cfe0be2c70c7dd773528f34290994a0c3a166a1cecb04a5342d5eccb6953f258b87c0497e90e2ffd2c5f31723a3
> >
> > client:
> >
> > 99f28e78d4795c19ae686094bcef6e75e875fcd213c967c868108afcf3fc0bcd83a268e2566aee122ae74c0dc54cffdd1a7e43bfcf7fcf23f3dda50487d5b644
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9a8a628dd4f4aa1e
> >
> > For more information about the contents of this release, see:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HOP/versions/12350036
> >
> > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99!
> >
> > The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if
> > a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99
> > [ ] +0 No opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hans
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99-rc1
Posted by Xun Liu <li...@apache.org>.
+1 (non-binding) from me, I have checked the following items:
- Incubating in name
- NOTICE is fine
- DISCLAIMER exists
- All links are valid
- No unexpected binary files
- All ASF files have ASF headers
Best regards
Xun Liu
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:47 PM Hans Van Akelyen <ha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> This will be our preview 1.0 release, this release contains both the source
> code and binary to run the client. This will also be our first release
> without DISCLAIMER-WIP but the regular disclaimer.
>
> This release aims to get as much feedback as possible so we can remove some
> final bugs before releasing 1.0.
>
> Build instructions can be found in the README included.
>
> Hop community vote and result threads:
> Vote:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra0cb8d9286e3cabf3348f3544a6dc0e60dcdd87a58918a7c1a413d36%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
> Result:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ra6e1e447f5611bea927e8b41558d5ff790e8475e8e44629b7e872a14%40%3Cdev.hop.apache.org%3E
>
> The tag to be voted on is 0.99-rc1 (commit a29e5a7)
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-hop/tree/0.99-rc1
>
> The release files, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hop/apache-hop-0.99-incubating-rc1/
>
> The SHA512 Checksum for these artifacts is:
> code:
>
> ab62b90b311097fde622884cbcd3c67ccec75cfe0be2c70c7dd773528f34290994a0c3a166a1cecb04a5342d5eccb6953f258b87c0497e90e2ffd2c5f31723a3
>
> client:
>
> 99f28e78d4795c19ae686094bcef6e75e875fcd213c967c868108afcf3fc0bcd83a268e2566aee122ae74c0dc54cffdd1a7e43bfcf7fcf23f3dda50487d5b644
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9a8a628dd4f4aa1e
>
> For more information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/HOP/versions/12350036
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99!
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours and passes if
> a majority of at least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Hop (incubating) 0.99
> [ ] +0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> Best Regards,
> Hans
>