You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com> on 2010/02/23 23:36:21 UTC
Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately:
Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on
licenses now have license texts.
The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you
tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote
+1 again!
Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate
(0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source
bits as rc6 except changing the name.
You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at:
http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6
The subversion revision is: 909632
( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid )
The rules for a release vote are:
( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes )
* Simple majority required.
* No veto votes
* At least 3 + votes.
I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC
votes.
I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
will total the votes.
Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find
the votes.
It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you
should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd
suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it.
Thanks
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>.
Alan Conway wrote:
> On 02/23/2010 05:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote
>> immediately:
>>
>
> +1 with a release note.
>
> Tested:
> - C++ build & make check OK.
> - Start a cluster
> - Run some python management tools (need release note on installing
> them, below)
>
> == Release note (Rafi can you check this is correct?)
>
> To install the python tools you need to download the complete
> distribution tarball qpid-0.6rc6.tar.gz (rather than the python-only
> tarball qpid-python-0.6rc6.tar.gz) and do the following as root:
>
> - cd qpid-0.6rc6/python
> - make install
> - cd ../specs
> - cp amqp.0-10-qpid-errata.xml amqp.0-10.dtd <prefix>/share/amqp
> ==
The specs directory is included in the python release artifact, so you
don't need to download the complete distribution tarball, however these
instructions will work either way.
Also if you want to use the 0-8/9 version of the client you'll need the
other spec files as well, so I would cp *.xml and *.dtd.
--Rafael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On 02/23/2010 05:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately:
>
+1 with a release note.
Tested:
- C++ build & make check OK.
- Start a cluster
- Run some python management tools (need release note on installing them, below)
== Release note (Rafi can you check this is correct?)
To install the python tools you need to download the complete distribution
tarball qpid-0.6rc6.tar.gz (rather than the python-only tarball
qpid-python-0.6rc6.tar.gz) and do the following as root:
- cd qpid-0.6rc6/python
- make install
- cd ../specs
- cp amqp.0-10-qpid-errata.xml amqp.0-10.dtd <prefix>/share/amqp
==
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> >>
> >> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote
> >> immediately:
> >>
> >> Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the
> Apache rules
> >> on licenses now have license texts.
> >>
> >> The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if
> >> you tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have
> every reason
> >> to vote
> >> +1 again!
> >>
> >> Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release
> >> candidate
> >> (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the
> identical source
> >> bits as rc6 except changing the name.
> >>
> >> You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at:
> >> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6
> >>
> >> The subversion revision is: 909632
> >> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid )
> >>
> >> The rules for a release vote are:
> >> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes )
> >>
> >> * Simple majority required.
> >> * No veto votes
> >> * At least 3 + votes.
> >>
> >> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just
> "binding" PMC
> >> votes.
> >>
> >> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At
> that point I
> >> will total the votes.
> >>
> >> Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to
> >> find the votes.
> >>
> >> It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you
> >> should have a reason to think that the release is good
> enough - I'd
> >> suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it.
> >
> > It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the
> c++ broker
> > run, python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also
> > looks ok except for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is
> tiny, but
> > it is code and it doesn't have the license at the top.
> Oh dear, looks like I missed it.
>
> > (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that
> also don't
> > have this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but
> these may
> > not be
> > required?)
>
> If I add the license text to those csproj files, VC++ will
> complain. I added it last time around and steve had to remove them.
I did???
It's a problem if the license text is first in the file; I remember
having to move it down after the first line (which has special
characters in it that Windows or MSVC use to detect the project
version).
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>>
>> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote
>> immediately:
>>
>> Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on
>> licenses now have license texts.
>>
>> The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you
>> tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote
>> +1 again!
>>
>> Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate
>> (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source
>> bits as rc6 except changing the name.
>>
>> You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at:
>> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6
>>
>> The subversion revision is: 909632
>> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid )
>>
>> The rules for a release vote are:
>> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes )
>>
>> * Simple majority required.
>> * No veto votes
>> * At least 3 + votes.
>>
>> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC
>> votes.
>>
>> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
>> will total the votes.
>>
>> Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find
>> the votes.
>>
>> It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you
>> should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd
>> suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it.
>
> It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run,
> python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except
> for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it
> doesn't have the license at the top.
Oh dear, looks like I missed it.
> (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have
> this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be
> required?)
If I add the license text to those csproj files, VC++ will complain.
I added it last time around and steve had to remove them.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:20 AM
>> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
>> ...
>> > On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
>> > licence, and if most of them already include it then it
>> seems sensible
>> > to do the rest and finish the job.
>>
>> Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that?
>
> Who's working on the .NET client these days? Has it been tested?
>
>> Following
>> Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are
>> certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top
>> of the file - do these cause problems for MSVC?
>
> No, as long as the inserted XML doesn't step on a special marker char
> which may be at the very start of the file. I checked a few of the
> dotnet csproj files and they didn't have that marker anyway, so there
> should be no problem dropping the license into an XML comment. Just make
> sure to try a build before committing and things should be fine.
I have no issues adding the license header, but I don't have a way of
testing it out.
Last time I did it, I had stepped on the almigty special marker and
Steve had to work it out.
So I believe somebody from the .NET project needs to do this and
verify that everything is fine.
> -Steve
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by "Cliff Jansen (Interop Systems Inc)" <v-...@microsoft.com>.
> There are
> certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file
> - do these cause problems for MSVC?
These C# project files are just XML. Putting the Apache license in
an XML comment at the top of the file will not adversely affect MSVC.
Cliff
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 4:20 AM
To: dev@qpid.apache.org
Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
> can proceed with a vote, correct?
I believe we have to fix the missing license on the source code at a
minimum. I have checked in that change as r917988.
> On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
> licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible
> to do the rest and finish the job.
Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? Following
Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are
certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file
- do these cause problems for MSVC?
> Robbie
>
> On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim<gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run,
>> python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except
>> for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it
>> doesn't have the license at the top.
>>
>> (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have
>> this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be
>> required?)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Sim [mailto:gsim@redhat.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:20 AM
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
> ...
> > On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
> > licence, and if most of them already include it then it
> seems sensible
> > to do the rest and finish the job.
>
> Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that?
Who's working on the .NET client these days? Has it been tested?
> Following
> Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are
> certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top
> of the file - do these cause problems for MSVC?
No, as long as the inserted XML doesn't step on a special marker char
which may be at the very start of the file. I checked a few of the
dotnet csproj files and they didn't have that marker anyway, so there
should be no problem dropping the license into an XML comment. Just make
sure to try a build before committing and things should be fine.
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
> can proceed with a vote, correct?
I believe we have to fix the missing license on the source code at a
minimum. I have checked in that change as r917988.
> On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
> licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible
> to do the rest and finish the job.
Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? Following
Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are
certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file
- do these cause problems for MSVC?
> Robbie
>
> On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim<gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run,
>> python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except
>> for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it
>> doesn't have the license at the top.
>>
>> (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have
>> this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be
>> required?)
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
>> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
>> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
can proceed with a vote, correct?
On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible
to do the rest and finish the job.
Robbie
On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run,
> python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except
> for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it
> doesn't have the license at the top.
>
> (There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have
> this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be
> required?)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 02/23/2010 10:36 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately:
>
> Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on
> licenses now have license texts.
>
> The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you
> tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote
> +1 again!
>
> Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate
> (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source
> bits as rc6 except changing the name.
>
> You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at:
> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6
>
> The subversion revision is: 909632
> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid )
>
> The rules for a release vote are:
> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes )
>
> * Simple majority required.
> * No veto votes
> * At least 3 + votes.
>
> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC
> votes.
>
> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
> will total the votes.
>
> Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find
> the votes.
>
> It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you
> should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd
> suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it.
It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker
run, python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks
ok except for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is
code and it doesn't have the license at the top.
(There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't
have this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may
not be required?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
> > It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the
> other way on this, eg:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
> >
> > "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
> >
> > Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text."
>
> That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the
> site. Or at least ambiguous information.
>
> Andrew
>
>
I didn't notice (no pun intended) at the time, but the other quote is actually contradicted too:
> As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
> 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says
> "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in
> every distribution."
The other page you linked has:
"NOTICE file
0. Every Apache distribution should include a NOTICE file in the top directory, along with the standard LICENSE file."
As such I don't think the website can be taken as definitive grounds to proceed or not, and recommend that if you are absolutely against running the script right now the one last time required to get rid of the issue, then we need to simply take this to legal-discuss to get a definitive answer from a human before distributing it.
Robbie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Marnie McCormack <ma...@googlemail.com>.
I'd agree that we need a new RC to pick up the ruby license fix. Is this
something you're able to do Andrew please ?
Seems like we're inches from a release and it'd be great to get it out
there.
Marnie
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:05 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> > >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be
> released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon
> already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so
> I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
> > >
> > > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not
> > > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other
> > > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail.
> >
> > The point of the vote here is to ensure that there is consensus that the
> > release can proceed, and no one has any concerns.
>
> Release votes are not about consensus, at least not in any unanimous
> sense - they are votes with specific rules: majority vote; at least 3
> votes for; no vetoes.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
Andrew,
Are you going to close the Vote and post the result?
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:05 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
> >
> > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not
> > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other
> > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail.
>
> The point of the vote here is to ensure that there is consensus that the
> release can proceed, and no one has any concerns.
Release votes are not about consensus, at least not in any unanimous
sense - they are votes with specific rules: majority vote; at least 3
votes for; no vetoes.
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 03/04/2010 07:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
>
> You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not
> voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other
> people with a similar view then the release vote will fail.
The point of the vote here is to ensure that there is consensus that the
release can proceed, and no one has any concerns.
Robbie *has* raised a reasonable concern, and we should address it,
especially since all it requires is a respin of the artefacts (as I
understand it the release script automates a lot of the process anyway?).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
There is 1 ruby source file that is not licenced in the RC but is on the
branch, Gordon fixed it a couple days ago). I agree that the csproj files
can be classed as not source.
Robbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rajith Attapattu [mailto:rajith77@gmail.com]
> Sent: 04 March 2010 19:54
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
>
> +1 for the release.
> The files in question are not really "source" files.
> They are just project files for an IDE.
>
> Rajith.
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> >> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be
> released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as
> Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been
> several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this
> point is of concern.
> >
> > You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not
> > voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other
> > people with a similar view then the release vote will fail.
> >
> > Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to
> > spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this
> release.
> > If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager
> role.
> >
> >>
> >> It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the
> other way on this, eg:
> >>
> >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
> >>
> >> "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
> >>
> >> Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text."
> >
> > That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on
> the
> > site. Or at least ambiguous information.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> > Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> > Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Rajith Attapattu
> Red Hat
> http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Rajith Attapattu <ra...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the release.
The files in question are not really "source" files.
They are just project files for an IDE.
Rajith.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
>> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
>
> You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not
> voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other
> people with a similar view then the release vote will fail.
>
> Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to
> spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this release.
> If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager role.
>
>>
>> It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other way on this, eg:
>>
>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>>
>> "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
>>
>> Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text."
>
> That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the
> site. Or at least ambiguous information.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
--
Regards,
Rajith Attapattu
Red Hat
http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
> I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not
voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other
people with a similar view then the release vote will fail.
Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to
spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this release.
If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager role.
>
> It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other way on this, eg:
>
> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
>
> "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
>
> Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text."
That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the
site. Or at least ambiguous information.
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other way on this, eg:
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license
"Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text?
Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text."
Also, on the page you linked http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers
"Why is a licensing header necessary?
License headers allow someone examining the file to know the terms for the work, even when it is distributed without the rest of the distribution. Without a licensing notice, it must be assumed that the author has reserved all rights, including the right to copy, modify, and redistribute."
Robbie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:astitcher@redhat.com]
> Sent: 04 March 2010 17:17
> To: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
>
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> > Blah blah blah
> >
> > I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
> > will total the votes.
>
> As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
>
> So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
>
> I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of
> license
> headers in all our files.
>
> My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice
> Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not
> having them is not a blocker to a release:
>
> In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2.
> It says: "Each source file should include the following license
> header".
> I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but
> strongly recommended.
>
> As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
> 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects
> MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution."
>
> RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in
> technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid
> reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item".
>
> Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being
> responsible
> for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2
> months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and
> get on with preparing for 0.8.
>
> I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even
> on
> the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous
> candidate).
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Carl Trieloff <cc...@redhat.com>.
On 03/04/2010 12:31 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>>> Blah blah blah
>>>
>>> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
>>> will total the votes.
>>
>> As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
>>
>> So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
>>
>> I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license
>> headers in all our files.
>>
>> My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice
>> Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not
>> having them is not a blocker to a release:
>>
>> In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2.
>> It says: "Each source file should include the following license header".
>> I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but
>> strongly recommended.
>>
>> As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
>> 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects
>> MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution."
>>
>> RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in
>> technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid
>> reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item".
>
> On the basis of your argument and citations above, I am happy to vote
> +1 on this candidate. My only concern was the RAT issues, everything
> else looked good.
ack, I was assuming another build, but based on that +1.
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
>> Blah blah blah
>>
>> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
>> will total the votes.
>
> As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
>
> So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
>
> I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license
> headers in all our files.
>
> My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice
> Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not
> having them is not a blocker to a release:
>
> In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2.
> It says: "Each source file should include the following license header".
> I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but
> strongly recommended.
>
> As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
> 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects
> MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution."
>
> RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in
> technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid
> reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item".
On the basis of your argument and citations above, I am happy to vote +1
on this candidate. My only concern was the RAT issues, everything else
looked good.
>
> Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being responsible
> for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2
> months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and
> get on with preparing for 0.8.
>
> I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even on
> the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous
> candidate).
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
RE: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
> As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
>
> So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
>
> I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion
> of license headers in all our files.
Right.
> My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright
> Notice Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
> ) is that not having them is not a blocker to a release:
>
> In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF"
> section 2. It says: "Each source file should include the
> following license header". I interpret the use of the word
> "should" to mean non mandatory, but strongly recommended.
>
> As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
> 2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says
> "Apache projects MUST include correct NOTICE documents in
> every distribution."
I agree with you - thanks for digging this info out.
> Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being
> responsible for a release that hasn't changed any functional
> part in nearly 2
> months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release
> 0.6 and get on with preparing for 0.8.
>
> I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the
> release (even on the basis that they tested a functionally
> equivalent previous candidate).
Good point. I vote +1 and also opened QPID-2431 to note that this should
be fixed by the next release.
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by Andrew Stitcher <as...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> Blah blah blah
>
> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
> will total the votes.
As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license
headers in all our files.
My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice
Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not
having them is not a blocker to a release:
In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2.
It says: "Each source file should include the following license header".
I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but
strongly recommended.
As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects
MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution."
RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in
technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid
reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item".
Given all this (and that I'm frankly getting fed up of being responsible
for a release that hasn't changed any functional part in nearly 2
months) I would like one more positive vote so we can release 0.6 and
get on with preparing for 0.8.
I'm disappointed that more people haven't voted for the release (even on
the basis that they tested a functionally equivalent previous
candidate).
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Vote for 0.6 Release (Really)
Posted by michael goulish <mg...@redhat.com>.
+1 for shipping it!
I tested failover_soak ( in cpp/src/tests ) in a 1 M message cluster
failover test against a 4-cluster. This test involved about 20
broker-kills. It was happy. ( No dropped messages. )
I also used the first version of Shackleton ( a testing tool I'm working
on ) to generate and run 1080 separate tests of messaging topology.
i.e. different numbers of queues, receivers per queue, routing keys per
queue, and senders per key.
All the Shackleton tests passed -- the number of messages at each
receiver were as predicted. Also, in all tests with multiple receivers
per queue, allocation fairness was reasonable -- average disparity
across all tests of 0.9%, maximum disparity of 10%.
So I say, ship it!
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> I've uploaded qpid-0.6rc6 and I think that we are ready for a vote immediately:
>
> Thanks to Rajith the files that were in violation of the Apache rules on
> licenses now have license texts.
>
> The only differences between rc6 and rc5 are non-functional, so if you
> tested rc5 at all and you voted +1, you should have every reason to vote
> +1 again!
>
> Therefore I'd like to call for a vote to release this release candidate
> (0.6rc6) "as is" relabelled as 0.6. In other words the identical source
> bits as rc6 except changing the name.
>
> You should find qpid-0.6rc6 at:
> http://qpid.apache.org/dist/qpid-0.6rc6
>
> The subversion revision is: 909632
> ( https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/qpid/branches/0.6-release/qpid )
>
> The rules for a release vote are:
> ( http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#ReleaseVotes )
>
> * Simple majority required.
> * No veto votes
> * At least 3 + votes.
>
> I propose that we consider all commiter votes not just "binding" PMC
> votes.
>
> I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
> will total the votes.
>
> Please vote in a message replying to this one to make it easier to find
> the votes.
>
> It goes without saying (well clearly not) that if you vote yes you
> should have a reason to think that the release is good enough - I'd
> suggest downloading whatever you know most about and trying it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org