You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@daffodil.apache.org by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> on 2018/02/16 19:46:25 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Hi all,
I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
It is also listed here:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
My vote: +1
Thanks,
- Steve
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Joshua Adams <ja...@tresys.com>.
My vote +1
Josh Adams
________________________________
From: Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 2:46:25 PM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Hi all,
I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
It is also listed here:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
My vote: +1
Thanks,
- Steve
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com>.
My vote
+1
________________________________
From: Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 2:46:25 PM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Hi all,
I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
It is also listed here:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
My vote: +1
Thanks,
- Steve
[RESULT][VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>.
The VOTE to release rc2 of Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0 is now
closed. With a total of +5, and NO -1 votes, the VOTE passes. Overall
vote breakdown is as follows:
+1 John D. Ament (binding)
+1 Steve Lawrence
+1 Mike Beckerle
+1 Josh Adams
+1 Dave Thompson
Thanks to everyone who voted. I'll open the VOTE thread on the Incubator
general list shortly.
- Steve
On 02/16/2018 02:46 PM, Steve Lawrence wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
>
> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
>
> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
>
> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
>
> It is also listed here:
>
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
>
> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
>
> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>
> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>
> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
>
> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> My vote: +1
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>.
Thanks for your recommendation. I've pushed those changes to PR-51,
which I think now satisfies all concerns raised regarding the
LICENSE/NOTICE files.
If you could do a quick skim of the new files to make sure everything
looks reasonable, that would be greatly appreciated. The files on github
are at:
Source LICENSE:
https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/LICENSE
Source NOTICE:
https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/NOTICE
Convenience binary LICENSE:
https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/daffodil-cli/LICENSE-bin
Convenience binary NOTICE:
https://github.com/stevedlawrence/incubator-daffodil/blob/daffodil-1906-license/daffodil-cli/NOTICE-bin
Thanks,
- Steve
On 03/06/2018 01:38 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Steve
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:39 AM Steve Lawrence <slawrence@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
> On 03/05/2018 01:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM Mike Beckerle <mbeckerle@tresys.com
> <ma...@tresys.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >>
> >> This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> >>> throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> >>> "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> >>> find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> >>> containing the files are in:
> >>>
> >>> daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> >>> daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit muddier,
> >> if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
> >> easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
> >> We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point
> >> of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were created
> >> by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our
> >> interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not
> >> possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without introducing
> >> the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition -
> >> e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the contents of
> >> additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not what
> >> these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the
> >> isolation of the tested behaviors.
> >>
> >> To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is
> >> legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the
> >> other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL specification.
> >>
> >> So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify
> >> exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that
> >> these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed, so as
> >> to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of the
> >> DFDL standard?
> >>
> >>
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. My ask is that we list
> > out the license for the files coming from outside sources.
> >
> > I have an additional ask if we have modified the source code.
> >
> > Please note that if this is something derived from a specification, then
> > you're not actually bringing in source code. We care about source code.
> >
>
> Some of our files are majority written by us (Apache v2) but include
> snippets that came out of the Open Grid Forum DFDL specification (OGF
> licensed). We did not make any changes to the snippets. Note that these
> snippets are XML schema, which could be considered source code, but if
> not maybe this is all moot?
>
> For example, this is one of those files:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd
>
>
> I would move this section
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd#L25-L28 into
> the header. But in general, we use the original file's license when we've
> modified the code.
>
>
>
> In that file, lines 36-43 are an OGF snippet, but the rest of the file
> is custom written. The header of the schema is Apache v2 license, and
> line 25 contains a blurb about some content being OGF licensed. PR-51
> adds content to the OGF section of the LICENSE file specify these files
> that contain OGF content.
>
> You mentioned that files that contain mixed licenses can get muddy. Mike
> looked into separating out the OGF snippets and his conclusion is that
> separation would either be too difficult or would change the intention
> of a test, so would not be ideal.
>
> I guess we would just like clarity if we are properly handling these
> mixed files with the changes to LICENSE in PR-51 by listing those files
> in the OGF license section and including the OGF copyright blurb in the
> files themselves.
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Steve
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:39 AM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 03/05/2018 01:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >>
> >> This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> >>> throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> >>> "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> >>> find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> >>> containing the files are in:
> >>>
> >>> daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> >>> daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
> >>>
> >>
> >> Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit
> muddier,
> >> if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
> >> easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
> >> We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point
> >> of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were
> created
> >> by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our
> >> interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not
> >> possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without
> introducing
> >> the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition -
> >> e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the
> contents of
> >> additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not
> what
> >> these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the
> >> isolation of the tested behaviors.
> >>
> >> To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is
> >> legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the
> >> other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL
> specification.
> >>
> >> So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify
> >> exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that
> >> these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed,
> so as
> >> to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of
> the
> >> DFDL standard?
> >>
> >>
> > I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. My ask is that we list
> > out the license for the files coming from outside sources.
> >
> > I have an additional ask if we have modified the source code.
> >
> > Please note that if this is something derived from a specification, then
> > you're not actually bringing in source code. We care about source code.
> >
>
> Some of our files are majority written by us (Apache v2) but include
> snippets that came out of the Open Grid Forum DFDL specification (OGF
> licensed). We did not make any changes to the snippets. Note that these
> snippets are XML schema, which could be considered source code, but if
> not maybe this is all moot?
>
> For example, this is one of those files:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd
I would move this section
https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd#L25-L28
into
the header. But in general, we use the original file's license when we've
modified the code.
>
>
> In that file, lines 36-43 are an OGF snippet, but the rest of the file
> is custom written. The header of the schema is Apache v2 license, and
> line 25 contains a blurb about some content being OGF licensed. PR-51
> adds content to the OGF section of the LICENSE file specify these files
> that contain OGF content.
>
> You mentioned that files that contain mixed licenses can get muddy. Mike
> looked into separating out the OGF snippets and his conclusion is that
> separation would either be too difficult or would change the intention
> of a test, so would not be ideal.
>
> I guess we would just like clarity if we are properly handling these
> mixed files with the changes to LICENSE in PR-51 by listing those files
> in the OGF license section and including the OGF copyright blurb in the
> files themselves.
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>.
On 03/05/2018 01:29 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>>
>> This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
>>
>>>
>>> 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
>>> throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
>>> "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
>>> find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
>>> containing the files are in:
>>>
>>> daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
>>> daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
>>>
>>
>> Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit muddier,
>> if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
>> easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
>> We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point
>> of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were created
>> by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our
>> interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not
>> possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without introducing
>> the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition -
>> e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the contents of
>> additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not what
>> these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the
>> isolation of the tested behaviors.
>>
>> To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is
>> legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the
>> other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL specification.
>>
>> So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify
>> exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that
>> these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed, so as
>> to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of the
>> DFDL standard?
>>
>>
> I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. My ask is that we list
> out the license for the files coming from outside sources.
>
> I have an additional ask if we have modified the source code.
>
> Please note that if this is something derived from a specification, then
> you're not actually bringing in source code. We care about source code.
>
Some of our files are majority written by us (Apache v2) but include
snippets that came out of the Open Grid Forum DFDL specification (OGF
licensed). We did not make any changes to the snippets. Note that these
snippets are XML schema, which could be considered source code, but if
not maybe this is all moot?
For example, this is one of those files:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/dpaspc7132.dfdl.xsd
In that file, lines 36-43 are an OGF snippet, but the rest of the file
is custom written. The header of the schema is Apache v2 license, and
line 25 contains a blurb about some content being OGF licensed. PR-51
adds content to the OGF section of the LICENSE file specify these files
that contain OGF content.
You mentioned that files that contain mixed licenses can get muddy. Mike
looked into separating out the OGF snippets and his conclusion is that
separation would either be too difficult or would change the intention
of a test, so would not be ideal.
I guess we would just like clarity if we are properly handling these
mixed files with the changes to LICENSE in PR-51 by listing those files
in the OGF license section and including the OGF copyright blurb in the
files themselves.
Thanks,
- Steve
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com>.
Let me see if I can clarify my question/issue.
For these particular DFDL Schema test files created by IBM incorporating snippets from the DFDL spec document, you suggested we separate these parts.
We cannot do that. These files are test data for daffodil in the same way that a Pascal program is test data to a Pascal comipler. To modify them is to lose their entire reason for being.
Since we cannot do the suggested separation, then what else can/should we do?
We're already listing these files individually, and pointing out their IBM and OGF content. Is anything else necessary?
...mike beckerle
________________________________
From: John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 1:29 PM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com> wrote:
> John,
>
>
> This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
>
> >
> > 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> > throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> > "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> > find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> > containing the files are in:
> >
> > daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> > daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
> >
>
> Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit muddier,
> if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
> easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
> We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point
> of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were created
> by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our
> interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not
> possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without introducing
> the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition -
> e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the contents of
> additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not what
> these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the
> isolation of the tested behaviors.
>
> To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is
> legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the
> other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL specification.
>
> So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify
> exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that
> these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed, so as
> to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of the
> DFDL standard?
>
>
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. My ask is that we list
out the license for the files coming from outside sources.
I have an additional ask if we have modified the source code.
Please note that if this is something derived from a specification, then
you're not actually bringing in source code. We care about source code.
> -Mike Beckerle
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 1:12 PM Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com> wrote:
> John,
>
>
> This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
>
> >
> > 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> > throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> > "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> > find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> > containing the files are in:
> >
> > daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> > daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
> >
>
> Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit muddier,
> if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
> easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
> We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point
> of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were created
> by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our
> interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not
> possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without introducing
> the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition -
> e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the contents of
> additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not what
> these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the
> isolation of the tested behaviors.
>
> To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is
> legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the
> other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL specification.
>
> So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify
> exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that
> these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed, so as
> to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of the
> DFDL standard?
>
>
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. My ask is that we list
out the license for the files coming from outside sources.
I have an additional ask if we have modified the source code.
Please note that if this is something derived from a specification, then
you're not actually bringing in source code. We care about source code.
> -Mike Beckerle
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Mike Beckerle <mb...@tresys.com>.
John,
This issue is one of the last remaining things we need to resolve.
>
> 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> containing the files are in:
>
> daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
>
Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit muddier,
if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
We can list these files, but decomposing them would lose the whole point of them, which is that Daffodil can run them, as is, as they were created by IBM, without changes being required. This is an important part of our interoperability claims with IBM's DFDL implementation. It's also not possible to split up a DFDL schema into multiple files without introducing the DFDL language issues associated with multi-file schema composition - e.g., namespaces, introduction of new lexical scopes around the contents of additional files, etc. Those are important things to test, but are not what these particular tests are about, so introducing them would reduce the isolation of the tested behaviors.
To me this use of example snippets drawn from the OGF spec document is legitimate fair use, and is exactly what was intended by myself and the other authors when these examples were included in the DFDL specification.
So how do we satisfy concerns around this matter? Can we simply identify exactly the files that contain this sort of material, and explain that these files are maintained as-is, in the form originally contributed, so as to serve to demonstrate interoperability with other implementations of the DFDL standard?
-Mike Beckerle
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Steve,
Comments in line about the source release. I don't believe any of these
issues block the release, so if you can create JIRA ticket(s) to solve in
the next release that's fine (you can reference those ticket(s) in the
release vote on IPMC as well).
I've done a partial review of the binary, will send a separate email about
that; but +1 to release (binding).
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:32 PM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>
wrote:
> In the source release, the root has a LICENSE file that mentions four
> "subcomponents" that have non-Apache licenses, and includes the full
> license text for each of those components. Those components are:
>
> 1) Passera library: BSD-style license, this is everything in
>
> daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/
> daffodil-lib/src/test/scala/passera/
>
This is the relevant section in the LICENSE file:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/LICENSE#L211-L215
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-daffodil/blob/master/LICENSE#L204-L212>
I would recommend listing these paths, and rephrasing as:
daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/
daffodil-lib/src/test/scala/passera/
BSD-3-Clause:
(then the license text).
The reason being, we don't care what the product is called, we care about
what the license is under that tree.
>
> 2) Two Scala library files: BSD-style license. We copied two files from
> the Scala library. These two files are Utility.scala and
> UniquenessCache.scala, located in these two directories
>
> daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/xml/scalaLib/
> daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/util/
>
Same pattern
>
> 3) W3C files, W3C Document License. The 5 file names are listed in the
> LICENSE file, located in:
>
> daffodil-lib/src/main/resources/org/apache/daffodil/xsd/
>
Agreed, these are listed as files, but ideally we would list the full paths
to the file (file names are not unique in the bundle, path to the file is
unique in the bundle)
>
> 4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
> throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
> "ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
> find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
> containing the files are in:
>
> daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
> daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
>
Same, please list these. Also note that partial files get a bit muddier,
if there's a way you can keep the files separate that would be make it
easier (hence why I've asked about modifying the source).
>
> Those are all the non-Apache licensed files that are include in the
> source release, all of which are mentioned in the LICENSE file, though
> maybe not explicitly enough? Should we include the full directory/file
> paths? Or maybe things need to be reorganized differently to make it
> more clear? Can you clarify what you mean by "pointer". Should we have
> licenses is separate files and point to those files in the LICENSE
> rather than including them? Or just point to a url online where the
> license is? I've looked at a lot of different ASF projects and many seem
> to have different ways of organizing their LICENSE/NOTICE, so I'm not
> really sure exactly what is expected.
>
If they didn't ask for anything, nothing to add then. I must have missed
the email about the SGA, let me dig through archives.
>
> The binary releases have a separate LICENSE and NOTICE, which are stored
> in source release in the daffodil-cli directory (the binary releases are
> built from the daffodil-cli directory). These LICENSE/NOTICE files
> include everything mentioned above since they all end up bundled in
> Daffodil jars, plus the LICENSE/NOTICE information from all the
> dependencies bundled in the /lib directory of the binary release.
>
>
One tip, I would rename the binary versions to LICENSE-bin and NOTICE-bin
even though they're in different directories; just to make it clearer what
they're for (since they do show up in the source release).
> ---
>
> We received three SGA's, from Tresys, NCSA, and IBM, which covers all
> the transferred source (excluding the 4 components mentioned above).
> We'll make sure to add these to the notice. Does this require an rc3 or
> can it be put off until the next release? Is there standard wording for
> how to include this in the notice, or other project that have something
> similar? This seems like a good idea to acknowledge all the work that
> these three companies put into development of Daffodil.
>
> ---
>
> I believe the two Scala files were copied in because we wanted to use
> classes that were defined in the Scala library but that were marked as
> private and so we couldn't. I don't think we made changes, but I'm not
> 100% positive about this--we'll look at the git logs and compare with
> the originals to confirm. I did add the full BSD license to the files to
> clarify that they are not Apache licensed, so they were modified in that
> sense, but not a functional change.
>
> - Steve
>
> On 02/16/2018 10:39 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'll make time this weekend to review (source looks mostly OK see below,
> > but want to review the binary), but I see the following issues:
> >
> > - LICENSE and NOTICE files are mixed up. In the LICENSE file you're
> > supposed to include all licenses for the source code contained in the
> > bundle. This would include BSD, W3C, etc. HOWEVER, I can't find most of
> > these contents actually bundled. What I typically see is a list of files
> > and a pointer to their license, full license text. As far as I can tell,
> > you're not actually bundling these in the source release yet the
> > LICENSE/NOTICE in the source release includes them (most project will
> > include distinct SOURCE and BINARY LICENSE/NOTICE files, since the scope
> > changes; especially with Daffodil since it looks like you bundle a server
> > component as well). The NOTICE should be reserved for only contents
> > specifically indicating a NOTICE must be included.
> > - Did we receive a SGA for the transference of source to the ASF? If
> so, I
> > would recommend listing the original authors in the NOTICE file (its
> > customary).
> > - For the source imported from Scala, was it modified?
> >
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating)
> 2.1.0-rc2.
> >>
> >> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> >> found at:
> >>
> >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
> >>
> >> Staging artifacts can be found at:
> >>
> >>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
> >>
> >> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
> >> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
> >> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
> >>
> >> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
> >>
> >> It is also listed here:
> >>
> >> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
> >>
> >> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
> >>
> >> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
> >>
> >> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
> >>
> >> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
> >>
> >> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1 approve
> >> [ ] +0 no opinion
> >> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >> My vote: +1
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Steve
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org>.
In the source release, the root has a LICENSE file that mentions four
"subcomponents" that have non-Apache licenses, and includes the full
license text for each of those components. Those components are:
1) Passera library: BSD-style license, this is everything in
daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/passera/
daffodil-lib/src/test/scala/passera/
2) Two Scala library files: BSD-style license. We copied two files from
the Scala library. These two files are Utility.scala and
UniquenessCache.scala, located in these two directories
daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/xml/scalaLib/
daffodil-lib/src/main/scala/org/apache/daffodil/util/
3) W3C files, W3C Document License. The 5 file names are listed in the
LICENSE file, located in:
daffodil-lib/src/main/resources/org/apache/daffodil/xsd/
4) Snippets from the OGF DFDL spec. These snippets are scattered
throughout multiple files, but are all located in an "ibm-tests" and
"ibm-contributed" directories. A grep for "Open Grid Forum" will show
find the copyright that is included in all these files. The directories
containing the files are in:
daffodil-test/src/test/resources/org/apache/daffodil/ibm-tests/
daffodil-test-ibm1/src/test/resources/test-suite/ibm-contributed/
Those are all the non-Apache licensed files that are include in the
source release, all of which are mentioned in the LICENSE file, though
maybe not explicitly enough? Should we include the full directory/file
paths? Or maybe things need to be reorganized differently to make it
more clear? Can you clarify what you mean by "pointer". Should we have
licenses is separate files and point to those files in the LICENSE
rather than including them? Or just point to a url online where the
license is? I've looked at a lot of different ASF projects and many seem
to have different ways of organizing their LICENSE/NOTICE, so I'm not
really sure exactly what is expected.
The binary releases have a separate LICENSE and NOTICE, which are stored
in source release in the daffodil-cli directory (the binary releases are
built from the daffodil-cli directory). These LICENSE/NOTICE files
include everything mentioned above since they all end up bundled in
Daffodil jars, plus the LICENSE/NOTICE information from all the
dependencies bundled in the /lib directory of the binary release.
---
We received three SGA's, from Tresys, NCSA, and IBM, which covers all
the transferred source (excluding the 4 components mentioned above).
We'll make sure to add these to the notice. Does this require an rc3 or
can it be put off until the next release? Is there standard wording for
how to include this in the notice, or other project that have something
similar? This seems like a good idea to acknowledge all the work that
these three companies put into development of Daffodil.
---
I believe the two Scala files were copied in because we wanted to use
classes that were defined in the Scala library but that were marked as
private and so we couldn't. I don't think we made changes, but I'm not
100% positive about this--we'll look at the git logs and compare with
the originals to confirm. I did add the full BSD license to the files to
clarify that they are not Apache licensed, so they were modified in that
sense, but not a functional change.
- Steve
On 02/16/2018 10:39 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'll make time this weekend to review (source looks mostly OK see below,
> but want to review the binary), but I see the following issues:
>
> - LICENSE and NOTICE files are mixed up. In the LICENSE file you're
> supposed to include all licenses for the source code contained in the
> bundle. This would include BSD, W3C, etc. HOWEVER, I can't find most of
> these contents actually bundled. What I typically see is a list of files
> and a pointer to their license, full license text. As far as I can tell,
> you're not actually bundling these in the source release yet the
> LICENSE/NOTICE in the source release includes them (most project will
> include distinct SOURCE and BINARY LICENSE/NOTICE files, since the scope
> changes; especially with Daffodil since it looks like you bundle a server
> component as well). The NOTICE should be reserved for only contents
> specifically indicating a NOTICE must be included.
> - Did we receive a SGA for the transference of source to the ASF? If so, I
> would recommend listing the original authors in the NOTICE file (its
> customary).
> - For the source imported from Scala, was it modified?
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
>>
>> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
>> found at:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
>>
>> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>>
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
>>
>> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
>> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
>> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
>>
>> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
>>
>> It is also listed here:
>>
>> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
>>
>> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
>>
>> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
>>
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>>
>> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>>
>> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
>>
>> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> [ ] +1 approve
>> [ ] +0 no opinion
>> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> My vote: +1
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Steve
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I'll make time this weekend to review (source looks mostly OK see below,
but want to review the binary), but I see the following issues:
- LICENSE and NOTICE files are mixed up. In the LICENSE file you're
supposed to include all licenses for the source code contained in the
bundle. This would include BSD, W3C, etc. HOWEVER, I can't find most of
these contents actually bundled. What I typically see is a list of files
and a pointer to their license, full license text. As far as I can tell,
you're not actually bundling these in the source release yet the
LICENSE/NOTICE in the source release includes them (most project will
include distinct SOURCE and BINARY LICENSE/NOTICE files, since the scope
changes; especially with Daffodil since it looks like you bundle a server
component as well). The NOTICE should be reserved for only contents
specifically indicating a NOTICE must be included.
- Did we receive a SGA for the transference of source to the ASF? If so, I
would recommend listing the original authors in the NOTICE file (its
customary).
- For the source imported from Scala, was it modified?
John
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM Steve Lawrence <sl...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found at:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
>
> Staging artifacts can be found at:
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
>
> This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to
> slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
> This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
>
> http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
>
> It is also listed here:
>
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
>
> The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
>
> For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
>
> For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
>
> https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
>
> Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1 approve
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
>
> My vote: +1
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
RE: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Posted by Dave Thompson <dt...@tresys.com>.
Done with my checkout.
My vote +1
Dave
Dave Thompson
Senior Engineer, Services
P: 410.290.1411 x162
dthompson@tresys.com | tresys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Lawrence [mailto:slawrence@apache.org]
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 2:46 PM
To: dev@daffodil.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] Release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2
Hi all,
I'd like to call a vote to release Apache Daffodil (Incubating) 2.1.0-rc2.
All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/daffodil/2.1.0-rc2/
Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachedaffodil-1001/
This release has been signed with PGP key 033AE661, corresponding to slawrence@apache.org, which is included in the repository's KEYS file.
This key can be found on keyservers, such as:
http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x033AE661
It is also listed here:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/slawrence.asc
The release candidate has been tagged in git with v2.1.0-rc2.
For reference, here is a list of all closed JIRAs tagged with 2.1.0:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DAFFODIL-1897?jql=project%20%3D%20DAFFODIL%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%202.1.0%20ORDER%20BY%20priority%20DESC%2C%20updated%20DESC
For a summary of the changes in this release, see:
https://daffodil.apache.org/releases/2.1.0/
Please review and vote. The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
[ ] +1 approve
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 disapprove (and reason why)
My vote: +1
Thanks,
- Steve