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 2015/03/20 21:45:14 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Hello,
The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3.
We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC:
5 +1 (binding)
0 <= 0 (binding)
The dev list voting thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ignite-dev/201503.mbox/%3CCA+0=VoWWtUj6BUxUxfDN23H2nTm92BXkR_yR4_PMk=Vqn2fVDA@mail.gmail.com%3E
All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
Please start voting.
+1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3 release
0 - don't care either way
-1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3 release (explain why)
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 20.03.2015 21:45, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3.
>>
>> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>>
>> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC:
>>
>> 5 +1 (binding)
>> 0 <= 0 (binding)
>>
>> The dev list voting thread:
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ignite-dev/201503.mbox/%3CCA+0=VoWWtUj6BUxUxfDN23H2nTm92BXkR_yR4_PMk=Vqn2fVDA@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
>>
>> Please start voting.
>>
>> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3 release
>> 0 - don't care either way
>> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3 release (explain why)
>
> Ping. To make things easier: the podling needs one more IPMC vote for
> its first release; the current tally (not counting the RM) is:
>
> +1 Yakov Zhdanov (PPMC)
> +1 Sergi Vladykin (PPMC)
> +1 Semyon Boikov (PPMC)
>
> and
>
> +1 Konstantin Boudnik (Mentor; binding)
> +1 Branko Čibej (Mentor; binding)
I was waiting for the closure of the JSR 166 discussion. Now that its done:
+1 (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-RC3
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 20.03.2015 21:45, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The Apache Ignite PPMC voted to release Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3.
>
> We now request the IPMC to vote on the release.
>
> Here is the PPMC voting result form Apache Ignite IPMC:
>
> 5 +1 (binding)
> 0 <= 0 (binding)
>
> The dev list voting thread:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/ignite-dev/201503.mbox/%3CCA+0=VoWWtUj6BUxUxfDN23H2nTm92BXkR_yR4_PMk=Vqn2fVDA@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> All release artifacts have been uploaded here:
> http://people.apache.org/~dsetrakyan/ignite-1.0.0-RC3
>
> Please start voting.
>
> +1 - to accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3 release
> 0 - don't care either way
> -1 - DO NOT accept Apache Ignite (incubating) 1.0 RC3 release (explain why)
Ping. To make things easier: the podling needs one more IPMC vote for
its first release; the current tally (not counting the RM) is:
+1 Yakov Zhdanov (PPMC)
+1 Sergi Vladykin (PPMC)
+1 Semyon Boikov (PPMC)
and
+1 Konstantin Boudnik (Mentor; binding)
+1 Branko Čibej (Mentor; binding)
-- 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-RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> This should be easy to fix. Will do.
These are not licensing errors as such, but still nice to fix. Next release is fine.
> These are optional runtime dependencies (GPL code is not present in the
> Apache Ignite source tree).
That's 100% OK then.
> Again, same as above. This is an optional dependency and the actual EPL
> code is not included in the source tree.
Also OK.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think Ignite does not pose a problem here because it does not have any
> GPL dependencies, optional or not. The only classes in question were the
> Doug Lee's JSR 166 classes, which I think we already agreed belong to the
> public domain and have to have proper headers.
>
> 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
>
> Please let me know if you still have concerns.
No problem, then! Thanks for clarifying, and thanks for toughing it out --
the first incubating release is always the hardest.
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and
> > similar:
> >
> > Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if
> > the component is only needed for optional features, a project can
> > provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> > non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required
> > for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a
> > desirable level of quality.
> >
> > Given the above, why are we still discussing this?
>
> After further research, here's where I stand:
>
> * I'm not going to vote on Ignite's release candidates based on this
> issue.
> * I agree that that passage appears to grant permission for Apache
> products
> to offer non-core features implemented against GPL-only interfaces.
> * I question whether that interpretation was intended. LGPL libraries
> yes, GPL libraries no. (FWIW, we haven't even confirmed that Ignite
> implements against any GPL-only interfaces.)
>
Marvin,
I think Ignite does not pose a problem here because it does not have any
GPL dependencies, optional or not. The only classes in question were the
Doug Lee's JSR 166 classes, which I think we already agreed belong to the
public domain and have to have proper headers.
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
Please let me know if you still have concerns.
D.
> LEGAL-54, the issue where that language was formulated, discusses LGPL
> libraries and GPL build tools, but not GPL libraries.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
>
> See also this message from Sam Ruby (Legal VP at the time) which
> differentiates between LGPL and GPL libraries:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u
>
> Another issue discusses "optional" components including GPL libraries
> behind a
> generic interface:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
>
> > When Subversion was incubating, 5 or so years ago, we went through the
> > same discussion regarding our dependency on Neon, even though it was
> > optional and Subversion works fine without any DAV plugin at all.
> > Subversion graduated while still having this (optional) dependency.
>
> All the discussion that I was able to find (the most important stuff was on
> private lists over a decade ago) talks about Neon as *LGPL*.
>
> > If you want to question Ignite's optional dependency on GPL code, you
> > should start by changing the published policy and making all TLPs throw
> > out such dependencies.
> >
> > Not gonna happen, right?
>
> I'm not going to go to the wall over this; I'm content to raise the point
> so
> that an interpretation I think may be faulty does not establish
> unchallenged
> precedent. The risks are low, I'm not an lawyer, and the case law on
> whether
> API usage even creates a derivative work is in flux -- see Google vs.
> Oracle
> and appeals.
>
> Please carry on.
>
> 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-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and
> similar:
>
> Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if
> the component is only needed for optional features, a project can
> provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
> non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required
> for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a
> desirable level of quality.
>
> Given the above, why are we still discussing this?
After further research, here's where I stand:
* I'm not going to vote on Ignite's release candidates based on this issue.
* I agree that that passage appears to grant permission for Apache products
to offer non-core features implemented against GPL-only interfaces.
* I question whether that interpretation was intended. LGPL libraries
yes, GPL libraries no. (FWIW, we haven't even confirmed that Ignite
implements against any GPL-only interfaces.)
LEGAL-54, the issue where that language was formulated, discusses LGPL
libraries and GPL build tools, but not GPL libraries.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-54
See also this message from Sam Ruby (Legal VP at the time) which
differentiates between LGPL and GPL libraries:
http://markmail.org/message/r4wbsivdlvwtoc5u
Another issue discusses "optional" components including GPL libraries behind a
generic interface:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-63
> When Subversion was incubating, 5 or so years ago, we went through the
> same discussion regarding our dependency on Neon, even though it was
> optional and Subversion works fine without any DAV plugin at all.
> Subversion graduated while still having this (optional) dependency.
All the discussion that I was able to find (the most important stuff was on
private lists over a decade ago) talks about Neon as *LGPL*.
> If you want to question Ignite's optional dependency on GPL code, you
> should start by changing the published policy and making all TLPs throw
> out such dependencies.
>
> Not gonna happen, right?
I'm not going to go to the wall over this; I'm content to raise the point so
that an interpretation I think may be faulty does not establish unchallenged
precedent. The risks are low, I'm not an lawyer, and the case law on whether
API usage even creates a derivative work is in flux -- see Google vs. Oracle
and appeals.
Please carry on.
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-RC3
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 22.03.2015 00:02, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Is this GPL software bundled or required?
>>> ./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt
>>> ./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt
>>> ./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
>>> ./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
>>>
>> These are optional runtime dependencies (GPL code is not present in the
>> Apache Ignite source tree). The license text is provided on per-dependency
>> basis to let the user know that if he/she chooses to include the
>> dependency, then it will be under the specified license.
> I think whether that's OK is going to depend on how the Ignite code interfaces
> with any GPL code. If it's going through a generalization layer a la JDBC
> which just happens to be implemented by GPL code, that might be OK. If Ignite
> is implementing against a GPL-only interface, probably not OK even though the
> dependency is optional. I think it would be best to pursue the matter
> further, either on the podling list, here, or on legal-discuss@apache. Here's
> some prior discussion:
>
> http://apache.markmail.org/thread/i6uzkkyibxx7bniv
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html says, on the topic of GPL and
similar:
Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. However, if
the component is only needed for optional features, a project can
provide the user with instructions on how to obtain and install the
non-included work. Optional means that the component is not required
for standard use of the product or for the product to achieve a
desirable level of quality.
Given the above, why are we still discussing this? Those are optional
components. Ignite works just fine without them.
When Subversion was incubating, 5 or so years ago, we went through the
same discussion regarding our dependency on Neon, even though it was
optional and Subversion works fine without any DAV plugin at all.
Subversion graduated while still having this (optional) dependency.
If you want to question Ignite's optional dependency on GPL code, you
should start by changing the published policy and making all TLPs throw
out such dependencies.
Not gonna happen, right?
-- 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-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>> Is this GPL software bundled or required?
>> ./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt
>> ./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt
>> ./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
>> ./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
>>
>
> These are optional runtime dependencies (GPL code is not present in the
> Apache Ignite source tree). The license text is provided on per-dependency
> basis to let the user know that if he/she chooses to include the
> dependency, then it will be under the specified license.
I think whether that's OK is going to depend on how the Ignite code interfaces
with any GPL code. If it's going through a generalization layer a la JDBC
which just happens to be implemented by GPL code, that might be OK. If Ignite
is implementing against a GPL-only interface, probably not OK even though the
dependency is optional. I think it would be best to pursue the matter
further, either on the podling list, here, or on legal-discuss@apache. Here's
some prior discussion:
http://apache.markmail.org/thread/i6uzkkyibxx7bniv
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Justin,
Thanks for your quick feedback. My comments are below.
D.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > If the files don't contain any GPL IP, then what we have is a "licensing
> > documentation bug":
>
> That's also my opinion. There are however several other issue with LICENSE
> and NOTICE, most are also "bugs' but I'm concerned about the other GPL
> licenses and the EPL license.
>
> Notice file needs some changes (mostly things removed).
> - No need to list Scala collection license as this is Apache licensed and
> has not NOTICE file. [1]
> - Look like JetBrains Annotations does have a NOTICE file and this text
> needs to go into the NOTICE file [2]
> - No need to list Persistent Collections library as it is MIT licensed and
> is already in LICENSE. [3]
> - No need to list snaptree as this is BSD and is already in LICENSE. [3]
> - No need to list org.jdk8.backport, you could out this in LICENSE
> (assuming it is public domain and not GPL).
>
> License file may need a few additions:
> - Add org.jdk8.backport (se above)
> - Possibly missing jcraft (BSD)?
> - Possibly missisng SL4j (MIT)?
> - Public domain books
>
This should be easy to fix. Will do.
>
> Is this GPL software bundled or required?
> ./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt
> ./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt
> ./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
> ./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
>
These are optional runtime dependencies (GPL code is not present in the
Apache Ignite source tree). The license text is provided on per-dependency
basis to let the user know that if he/she chooses to include the
dependency, then it will be under the specified license.
>
> It look like the software bundles these?
> ./modules/ssh/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
> ./modules/visor-console/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
> ./modules/slf4j/licenses/sl4j-mit-license.txt
> ./modules/visor-plugins/licenses/slf4j-mit-license.txt
> ./modules/scalar/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
> ./modules/visor-console/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
>
These libraries are not part of the source code, but are optional
dependencies, just like the ones described above.
>
> If so then need to be added to LICENSE.
>
> This may also be a concern as it is a weak copyleft license. [4]
> ./modules/aop/licenses/aspectj-epl-license.txt
>
Again, same as above. This is an optional dependency and the actual EPL
code is not included in the source tree.
> You may also want to mention these in LICENSE (public domain):
>
> ./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/alice-in-wonderland.txt
>
> ./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/art-of-war.txt
>
> ./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/huckleberry-finn.txt
>
> ./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/sherlock-holmes.txt
>
> ./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/tom-sawyer.txt
>
Will do.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> 2. https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/NOTICE.txt
> 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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-RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> If the files don't contain any GPL IP, then what we have is a "licensing
> documentation bug":
That's also my opinion. There are however several other issue with LICENSE and NOTICE, most are also "bugs' but I'm concerned about the other GPL licenses and the EPL license.
Notice file needs some changes (mostly things removed).
- No need to list Scala collection license as this is Apache licensed and has not NOTICE file. [1]
- Look like JetBrains Annotations does have a NOTICE file and this text needs to go into the NOTICE file [2]
- No need to list Persistent Collections library as it is MIT licensed and is already in LICENSE. [3]
- No need to list snaptree as this is BSD and is already in LICENSE. [3]
- No need to list org.jdk8.backport, you could out this in LICENSE (assuming it is public domain and not GPL).
License file may need a few additions:
- Add org.jdk8.backport (se above)
- Possibly missing jcraft (BSD)?
- Possibly missisng SL4j (MIT)?
- Public domain books
Is this GPL software bundled or required?
./modules/core/src/main/resources/META-INF/licenses/gnu-gplv2ce-license.txt
./modules/geospatial/licenses/jts-lgpl-license.txt
./modules/hibernate/licenses/hibernate-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
./modules/schedule/licenses/cron4j-lgpl-2.1-license.txt
It look like the software bundles these?
./modules/ssh/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
./modules/visor-console/licenses/jcraft-revised-bsd.txt
./modules/slf4j/licenses/sl4j-mit-license.txt
./modules/visor-plugins/licenses/slf4j-mit-license.txt
./modules/scalar/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
./modules/visor-console/licenses/scala-bsd-license.txt
If so then need to be added to LICENSE.
This may also be a concern as it is a weak copyleft license. [4]
./modules/aop/licenses/aspectj-epl-license.txt
You may also want to mention these in LICENSE (public domain):
./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/alice-in-wonderland.txt
./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/art-of-war.txt
./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/huckleberry-finn.txt
./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/sherlock-holmes.txt
./modules/hadoop/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/hadoop/books/tom-sawyer.txt
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
2. https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/blob/master/NOTICE.txt
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
4. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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-RC3
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 22/03/15 11:04, Jochen Theodorou a écrit :
> Am 22.03.2015 00:09, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
> [...]
>> Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with
>> precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal
>> distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is
>> extremely confusing. Having something named "RC" which is also an
>> official Apache release is... gah, it makes my brain hurt.
>>
>> Please consider adopting different terminology in the future --
>> "alpha", "beta", "golden master candidate / GM candidate", etc.
>
> Being new at Apache...how is RC and "release candidate" related to
> "released" and "unreleased code"?
It's unrelated. Release is a process, more specifically the result of a
process, RC is just a name. Unreleased code is just what is on the
repository, not yet packaged as a tar ball that has been voted and
endorsed as a release by the project PMC.
>
> Normally a release candidate is code ready for release, that if
> nothing has been found, will result in a full blown release with
> unchanged code base.
+1
> The terms alpha and beta don't catch that at all.
+1
> They are for earlier versions. I did never hear of "golden master
> candidate / GM candidate".
Because there is nothing like a rule at The ASF that tells you you must
deliver golden master whatever.
The ASF is quite directive about what is a release, it's totally silent
on which name you should use for a release. You can even use a code
name, like Ubuntu does...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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-RC3
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 22.03.2015 00:09, schrieb Marvin Humphrey:
[...]
> Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with
> precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal
> distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is
> extremely confusing. Having something named "RC" which is also an
> official Apache release is... gah, it makes my brain hurt.
>
> Please consider adopting different terminology in the future --
> "alpha", "beta", "golden master candidate / GM candidate", etc.
Being new at Apache...how is RC and "release candidate" related to
"released" and "unreleased code"?
Normally a release candidate is code ready for release, that if nothing
has been found, will result in a full blown release with unchanged code
base. The terms alpha and beta don't catch that at all. They are for
earlier versions. I did never hear of "golden master candidate / GM
candidate". So what is a generally understandable wording for RC if RC
is not supposed to be used here.
bye Jochen
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.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-RC3
Posted by Emmanuel Lécharny <el...@gmail.com>.
Le 22/03/15 00:09, Marvin Humphrey a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we
> release the final 1.0 release in a week or two.
> Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with
> precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal
> distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is
> extremely confusing. Having something named "RC" which is also an
> official Apache release is... gah, it makes my brain hurt.
Marvin,
there is no such thing as a 'precise meaning' for any release at The
ASF. The project might decide to call it whatever they want (RC, GA,
Candidate, Milestone, or even Blueberry) if they want to.
This is totally unrelated to any legal aspect. Release is one thing, ie,
the very *process* of releasing some code, the name which is used to
expose the package being release is another thing.
It *might* be confusing though, I agree. What we currently do in many
project is to move along a thread of releases, like :
1.0-M1 -> 1.0-M2 ->... 1.0-Mx -> 1.0-RC1 -> 1.0-RC2 ->... 1.0-RCy -> 1.0
Mx are milestones
RCy are release candidate
1.0 is the stable version (often it's just RCy renamed)
I have also seen 1.0-GA in place of 1.0
>
> Please consider adopting different terminology in the future --
> "alpha", "beta", "golden master candidate / GM candidate", etc.
That's up to the project to decide what they want to adopt. This is a
good suggestion, but not commonly adopted.
One more thing : your build tool is most of the time a driver when it
comes to pick a scheme. You often want to be sure that a given revision
is seen as following all the others. Typically, if you are going to work
in a OSGi environment, the naming scheme you use for release is
extremelly important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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-RC3
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 22.03.2015 00:09, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>>> The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be
>>>> submitted for PPMC vote on Monday.
>>> Hmm, I'm confused. This is 1.0-RC3. I would ordinarily expect that
>>> to become 1.0 once the release vote succeeds. While Apache isn't
>>> going to force a particular versioning scheme on you, I don't think
>>> you can put out two releases with the same version number. That would
>>> result in identically named artifacts with different content and
>>> security mechanisms going berzerk as a consequence.
>> This was intended to be a public RC3 release. If it was to pass the vote,
>> then the official release would also have 1.0-RC3 version.
>>
>> We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we
>> release the final 1.0 release in a week or two.
> Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with
> precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal
> distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is
> extremely confusing. Having something named "RC" which is also an
> official Apache release is... gah, it makes my brain hurt.
>
> Please consider adopting different terminology in the future --
> "alpha", "beta", "golden master candidate / GM candidate", etc.
Nonsense. Subversion has been making public candidate releases for 1.x.0
for years and we've not seen any of our users' heads explode yet. It's
just like a public beta but with stronger expectations wrt stability.
"Release candidate" just means "we believe it will become 1.0 but we may
still have to tweak it a bit." Our users don't care if there's a
recommended internal process that also mentions 'release candidate' in a
different context.
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-numbering
The distinction between released and unreleased lies in a) process and
b) location of the bits. I think you're confusing process stages with
version numbering. I see no reasonable basis for imposing some
particular version numbering or release naming scheme on any project.
-- 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-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be
>> > submitted for PPMC vote on Monday.
>>
>> Hmm, I'm confused. This is 1.0-RC3. I would ordinarily expect that
>> to become 1.0 once the release vote succeeds. While Apache isn't
>> going to force a particular versioning scheme on you, I don't think
>> you can put out two releases with the same version number. That would
>> result in identically named artifacts with different content and
>> security mechanisms going berzerk as a consequence.
>
> This was intended to be a public RC3 release. If it was to pass the vote,
> then the official release would also have 1.0-RC3 version.
>
> We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we
> release the final 1.0 release in a week or two.
Because "release candidate" and "RC" are specialized terms with
precise meaning at Apache and because we make a strong legal
distinction between "released" and "unreleased" code, this is
extremely confusing. Having something named "RC" which is also an
official Apache release is... gah, it makes my brain hurt.
Please consider adopting different terminology in the future --
"alpha", "beta", "golden master candidate / GM candidate", etc.
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > In this case, can we resume the voting for the release?
>
> Sure, voting has actually never stopped. :) Even if Justin or I were
> to vote -1, release VOTEs are majority approval with minimum of 3
> binding +1 votes. The Release Manager can technically choose to
> continue or not.
>
> Now if anybody finds something serious, the RM would ordinarily be
> expected to cancel the vote. But nevertheless, I encourage you to
> question IPMC voters and our reasoning. We may have some accumulated
> expertise, but none of us are lawyers. I see from the PPMC vote
> thread that there one of your Mentors suggested going to
> general@incubator earlier. That might have been a good idea -- here
> first, then maybe legal-discuss@apache later if we couldn't come up
> with a definitive answer.
>
> >> I'd suggest opening a ticket to correct the headers.
> >>
> >
> > Fixing them right now.
>
> Nice!
>
> > The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be
> > submitted for PPMC vote on Monday.
>
> Hmm, I'm confused. This is 1.0-RC3. I would ordinarily expect that
> to become 1.0 once the release vote succeeds. While Apache isn't
> going to force a particular versioning scheme on you, I don't think
> you can put out two releases with the same version number. That would
> result in identically named artifacts with different content and
> security mechanisms going berzerk as a consequence.
>
This was intended to be a public RC3 release. If it was to pass the vote,
then the official release would also have 1.0-RC3 version.
We wanted to have community to play with the RC3 release for a bit until we
release the final 1.0 release in a week or two.
>
> 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-RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I see from the PPMC vote thread that there one of your Mentors suggested going to
> general@incubator earlier. That might have been a good idea -- here
> first, then maybe legal-discuss@apache later if we couldn't come up
> with a definitive answer.
Can certainly ask here before making a release if you need something reviewed, double checked and/or are unsure of something.
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 Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> In this case, can we resume the voting for the release?
Sure, voting has actually never stopped. :) Even if Justin or I were
to vote -1, release VOTEs are majority approval with minimum of 3
binding +1 votes. The Release Manager can technically choose to
continue or not.
Now if anybody finds something serious, the RM would ordinarily be
expected to cancel the vote. But nevertheless, I encourage you to
question IPMC voters and our reasoning. We may have some accumulated
expertise, but none of us are lawyers. I see from the PPMC vote
thread that there one of your Mentors suggested going to
general@incubator earlier. That might have been a good idea -- here
first, then maybe legal-discuss@apache later if we couldn't come up
with a definitive answer.
>> I'd suggest opening a ticket to correct the headers.
>>
>
> Fixing them right now.
Nice!
> The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be
> submitted for PPMC vote on Monday.
Hmm, I'm confused. This is 1.0-RC3. I would ordinarily expect that
to become 1.0 once the release vote succeeds. While Apache isn't
going to force a particular versioning scheme on you, I don't think
you can put out two releases with the same version number. That would
result in identically named artifacts with different content and
security mechanisms going berzerk as a consequence.
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 21.03.2015 05:25, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Marvin Humphrey <marvin@rectangular.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> >> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think we made a mistake and imported the wrong version of the source
> >>> code. The same version is provided here by Doug Lee without the GPL
> >>> headers, but only with Public Domain header:
> >>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/
> >>>
> >>> I guess we will have to resubmit the release, unless you can accept it
> in
> >>> the current shape. Please advise.
> >> If the files don't contain any GPL IP, then what we have is a "licensing
> >> documentation bug": there's public domain IP which is perfectly fine to
> >> include, but it's misleadingly labeled. Shipping a release which
> contains
> >> such IP does not pose any legal problems.
> >>
> >> Contrast that with a licensing error, such as GPL IP onto which someone
> has
> >> slapped an ALv2 header. Shipping such a release could leave users and
> >> redistributors open to a claim of copyright violation.
> >>
> >> Licensing documentation bugs can vary from inconsequential to
> catastrophic
> >> depending on how badly they mislead downstream consumers. It seems to
> me
> >> that
> >> while this one might cause alarm, it shouldn't cause anybody to do
> anything
> >> illegal. So long as you are *certain* that those *exact* versions of
> the
> >> files are available under Doug Lea's public domain dedication and
> contain
> >> no
> >> GPL mods, I think it's OK.
> >>
> > Thanks for quick response.
> >
> > I am *certain* because these files were initially grabbed from Doug Lea's
> > JSR 166 page. The wrong license headers were added by mistake.
>
> Do you happen to know exactly which versions of those files were
> imported? I looked at the ConcurrentHashMap implementation and compared
> the current version on that site:
>
>
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/ConcurrentHashMapV8.java?revision=1.123
>
>
> with the one in the Ignite release package, and the differences are far
> larger than just license header changes:
>
> https://paste.apache.org/p/3SAz
>
>
The code for JSR-166 has evolved significantly since we did the initial
import close to 2 years ago, before the JDK8 was officially released yet. I
also tried to find the exact version we imported, but at this point I am
afraid it would be almost impossible. On top of that we have
removed/changed some not-needed code in the migrated classes.
>
> Sorry, I should've checked this much earlier ...
>
> I would suggest to *not* just remove the license headers in those files.
> Instead, delete the current files and import a fresh set directly from
> the repository at gee.cs.oswego.edu, then mention in NOTICE that they
> were imported from there, not from OpenJDK. Also please add a README
> file to the directory where those files are imported and note the exact
> versions of the imported files (maybe best to just list the ViewCVS
> download URLs, like the one above).
>
Yes, absolutely agree. I have created a ticket in Ignite JIRA, IGNITE-545,
to address this.
>
> Once you've imported the original files, you can, e.g., change the
> package name and make other minor modifications. The point is to have an
> audit trail of changes from the public-domain original to whatever we
> ship; currently, the Git log shows no such trail.
>
Yes, agree. Unfortunately this code was moved and renamed several times
since it was initially migrated. I am pretty sure that GIT origins of the
code are not clearanymore.
> -- Brane
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 4:52 PM, David Jencks <
david_jencks@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> I thought the more-up-to-date version of the backport stuff was here:
> http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/
>
>
Looks like there was no activity on this project since 2007.
> david jencks
>
> On Mar 21, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > --089e0112c408e2ec4c0511c9d829
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>
> wrote=
> > :
> >
> >> Am 21.03.2015 10:47, schrieb Branko =C4=8Cibej:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>> Do you happen to know exactly which versions of those files were
> >>> imported? I looked at the ConcurrentHashMap implementation and compared
> >>> the current version on that site:
> >>>
> >>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/
> >>> jsr166e/ConcurrentHashMapV8.java?revision=3D1.123
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> with the one in the Ignite release package, and the differences are far
> >>> larger than just license header changes:
> >>>
> >>> https://paste.apache.org/p/3SAz
> >>>
> >>
> >> I suggest comparing with the history of the OpenJDK8 file:
> >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/log/687fd7c7986d/src/share/
> >> classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> >>
> >> There have been quite a few changes in jdk8 for this map afaik
> >>
> >
> > Yes, good idea, and thanks for the link! I specifically find this comment
> > interesting there:
> > ----
> > 20 months ago psandoz 8019484: Sync j.u.c.ConcurrentHashMap from 166 to
> tl
> > ----
> >
> >
> >> bye Jochen
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> >> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> >> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> >> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --089e0112c4
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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-RC3
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
I thought the more-up-to-date version of the backport stuff was here: http://backport-jsr166.sourceforge.net/
david jencks
On Mar 21, 2015, at 6:24 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> --089e0112c408e2ec4c0511c9d829
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote=
> :
>
>> Am 21.03.2015 10:47, schrieb Branko =C4=8Cibej:
>> [...]
>>
>>> Do you happen to know exactly which versions of those files were
>>> imported? I looked at the ConcurrentHashMap implementation and compared
>>> the current version on that site:
>>>
>>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/
>>> jsr166e/ConcurrentHashMapV8.java?revision=3D1.123
>>>
>>>
>>> with the one in the Ignite release package, and the differences are far
>>> larger than just license header changes:
>>>
>>> https://paste.apache.org/p/3SAz
>>>
>>
>> I suggest comparing with the history of the OpenJDK8 file:
>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/log/687fd7c7986d/src/share/
>> classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>>
>> There have been quite a few changes in jdk8 for this map afaik
>>
>
> Yes, good idea, and thanks for the link! I specifically find this comment
> interesting there:
> ----
> 20 months ago psandoz 8019484: Sync j.u.c.ConcurrentHashMap from 166 to tl
> ----
>
>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>> --
>> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
>> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
>> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
>> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.org
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> --089e0112c4
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
> Am 21.03.2015 10:47, schrieb Branko Čibej:
> [...]
>
>> Do you happen to know exactly which versions of those files were
>> imported? I looked at the ConcurrentHashMap implementation and compared
>> the current version on that site:
>>
>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/
>> jsr166e/ConcurrentHashMapV8.java?revision=1.123
>>
>>
>> with the one in the Ignite release package, and the differences are far
>> larger than just license header changes:
>>
>> https://paste.apache.org/p/3SAz
>>
>
> I suggest comparing with the history of the OpenJDK8 file:
> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/log/687fd7c7986d/src/share/
> classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>
> There have been quite a few changes in jdk8 for this map afaik
>
Yes, good idea, and thanks for the link! I specifically find this comment
interesting there:
----
20 months ago psandoz 8019484: Sync j.u.c.ConcurrentHashMap from 166 to tl
----
> bye Jochen
>
> --
> Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
> blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
> For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.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-RC3
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Am 21.03.2015 10:47, schrieb Branko Čibej:
[...]
> Do you happen to know exactly which versions of those files were
> imported? I looked at the ConcurrentHashMap implementation and compared
> the current version on that site:
>
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/ConcurrentHashMapV8.java?revision=1.123
>
>
> with the one in the Ignite release package, and the differences are far
> larger than just license header changes:
>
> https://paste.apache.org/p/3SAz
I suggest comparing with the history of the OpenJDK8 file:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/jdk/log/687fd7c7986d/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
There have been quite a few changes in jdk8 for this map afaik
bye Jochen
--
Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou - Groovy Project Tech Lead
blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
german groovy discussion newsgroup: de.comp.lang.misc
For Groovy programming sources visit http://groovy-lang.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-RC3
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 21.03.2015 05:25, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
>> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we made a mistake and imported the wrong version of the source
>>> code. The same version is provided here by Doug Lee without the GPL
>>> headers, but only with Public Domain header:
>>> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/
>>>
>>> I guess we will have to resubmit the release, unless you can accept it in
>>> the current shape. Please advise.
>> If the files don't contain any GPL IP, then what we have is a "licensing
>> documentation bug": there's public domain IP which is perfectly fine to
>> include, but it's misleadingly labeled. Shipping a release which contains
>> such IP does not pose any legal problems.
>>
>> Contrast that with a licensing error, such as GPL IP onto which someone has
>> slapped an ALv2 header. Shipping such a release could leave users and
>> redistributors open to a claim of copyright violation.
>>
>> Licensing documentation bugs can vary from inconsequential to catastrophic
>> depending on how badly they mislead downstream consumers. It seems to me
>> that
>> while this one might cause alarm, it shouldn't cause anybody to do anything
>> illegal. So long as you are *certain* that those *exact* versions of the
>> files are available under Doug Lea's public domain dedication and contain
>> no
>> GPL mods, I think it's OK.
>>
> Thanks for quick response.
>
> I am *certain* because these files were initially grabbed from Doug Lea's
> JSR 166 page. The wrong license headers were added by mistake.
Do you happen to know exactly which versions of those files were
imported? I looked at the ConcurrentHashMap implementation and compared
the current version on that site:
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/ConcurrentHashMapV8.java?revision=1.123
with the one in the Ignite release package, and the differences are far
larger than just license header changes:
https://paste.apache.org/p/3SAz
Sorry, I should've checked this much earlier ...
I would suggest to *not* just remove the license headers in those files.
Instead, delete the current files and import a fresh set directly from
the repository at gee.cs.oswego.edu, then mention in NOTICE that they
were imported from there, not from OpenJDK. Also please add a README
file to the directory where those files are imported and note the exact
versions of the imported files (maybe best to just list the ViewCVS
download URLs, like the one above).
Once you've imported the original files, you can, e.g., change the
package name and make other minor modifications. The point is to have an
audit trail of changes from the public-domain original to whatever we
ship; currently, the Git log shows no such trail.
-- Brane
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:33 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I think we made a mistake and imported the wrong version of the source
> > code. The same version is provided here by Doug Lee without the GPL
> > headers, but only with Public Domain header:
> > http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/
> >
> > I guess we will have to resubmit the release, unless you can accept it in
> > the current shape. Please advise.
>
> If the files don't contain any GPL IP, then what we have is a "licensing
> documentation bug": there's public domain IP which is perfectly fine to
> include, but it's misleadingly labeled. Shipping a release which contains
> such IP does not pose any legal problems.
>
> Contrast that with a licensing error, such as GPL IP onto which someone has
> slapped an ALv2 header. Shipping such a release could leave users and
> redistributors open to a claim of copyright violation.
>
> Licensing documentation bugs can vary from inconsequential to catastrophic
> depending on how badly they mislead downstream consumers. It seems to me
> that
> while this one might cause alarm, it shouldn't cause anybody to do anything
> illegal. So long as you are *certain* that those *exact* versions of the
> files are available under Doug Lea's public domain dedication and contain
> no
> GPL mods, I think it's OK.
>
Thanks for quick response.
I am *certain* because these files were initially grabbed from Doug Lea's
JSR 166 page. The wrong license headers were added by mistake.
In this case, can we resume the voting for the release?
>
> I'd suggest opening a ticket to correct the headers.
>
Fixing them right now. The new 1.0 release with corrected headers will be
submitted for PPMC vote on Monday.
>
> 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-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think we made a mistake and imported the wrong version of the source
> code. The same version is provided here by Doug Lee without the GPL
> headers, but only with Public Domain header:
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/
>
> I guess we will have to resubmit the release, unless you can accept it in
> the current shape. Please advise.
If the files don't contain any GPL IP, then what we have is a "licensing
documentation bug": there's public domain IP which is perfectly fine to
include, but it's misleadingly labeled. Shipping a release which contains
such IP does not pose any legal problems.
Contrast that with a licensing error, such as GPL IP onto which someone has
slapped an ALv2 header. Shipping such a release could leave users and
redistributors open to a claim of copyright violation.
Licensing documentation bugs can vary from inconsequential to catastrophic
depending on how badly they mislead downstream consumers. It seems to me that
while this one might cause alarm, it shouldn't cause anybody to do anything
illegal. So long as you are *certain* that those *exact* versions of the
files are available under Doug Lea's public domain dedication and contain no
GPL mods, I think it's OK.
I'd suggest opening a ticket to correct the headers.
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
> <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi Justin,
> >
> > These are a few files back-ported directly from OpenJdk v8 code into
> > Ignite. For example, you can find the same file in OpenJDK here:
> >
> http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/8-b132/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
> >
> > This question had already come up during the PPMC vote. We concluded that
> > these files are safe because they are dual-licensed, as they have also
> been
> > officially donated to the public domain. All these files have this
> comment
> > in the header:
> > -------
> > /*
> > * This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public
> > * License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > * However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this
> > * file:
> > *
> > * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
> > * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
> > * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> > */
> > --------
> >
> > Please let me know if you still see an issue here.
>
> It sounds like the current version consists of GPL modifications
> layered on top of a public domain original. If that's accurate, then
> the original public domain version would be kosher, but the current
> versions with GPL mods would not be.
> Marvin Humphrey
>
Thanks Marvin,
I think we made a mistake and imported the wrong version of the source
code. The same version is provided here by Doug Lee without the GPL
headers, but only with Public Domain header:
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/jsr166e/
I guess we will have to resubmit the release, unless you can accept it in
the current shape. Please advise.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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-RC3
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
<ds...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> These are a few files back-ported directly from OpenJdk v8 code into
> Ignite. For example, you can find the same file in OpenJDK here:
> http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/8-b132/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>
> This question had already come up during the PPMC vote. We concluded that
> these files are safe because they are dual-licensed, as they have also been
> officially donated to the public domain. All these files have this comment
> in the header:
> -------
> /*
> * This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public
> * License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> * However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this
> * file:
> *
> * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
> * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
> * http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
> */
> --------
>
> Please let me know if you still see an issue here.
It sounds like the current version consists of GPL modifications
layered on top of a public domain original. If that's accurate, then
the original public domain version would be kosher, but the current
versions with GPL mods would not be.
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-RC3
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
Hi Justin,
These are a few files back-ported directly from OpenJdk v8 code into
Ignite. For example, you can find the same file in OpenJDK here:
http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/8-b132/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
This question had already come up during the PPMC vote. We concluded that
these files are safe because they are dual-licensed, as they have also been
officially donated to the public domain. All these files have this comment
in the header:
-------
/*
* This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public
* License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation.
* However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this
* file:
*
* Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
* Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
* http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
*/
--------
Please let me know if you still see an issue here.
D.
'
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I notice several files seem to be licensed under GPL. Can you confirm if
> this is the case or not.
>
> ./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ConcurrentHashMap8.java
> ./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ConcurrentLinkedDeque8.java
> ./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ConcurrentLinkedHashMap.java
> ./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/LongAdder.java
> ./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/Striped64.java
> ./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ThreadLocalRandom8.java
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Ignite (Incubating) 1.0-RC3
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
I notice several files seem to be licensed under GPL. Can you confirm if this is the case or not.
./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ConcurrentHashMap8.java
./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ConcurrentLinkedDeque8.java
./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ConcurrentLinkedHashMap.java
./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/LongAdder.java
./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/Striped64.java
./modules/core/src/main/java/org/jdk8/backport/ThreadLocalRandom8.java
Thanks,
Justin