You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> on 2017/02/02 19:38:05 UTC
[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Hello Incubator PMC,
The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
incubator release.
The VOTE RESULT is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
included in the source artifact.
Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
Please review and vote:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
Thanks,
- Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/15/17, 4:37 PM, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>Dan,
>
>So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to
>shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
>the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
>however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think its
>worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10,
>and
>see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better
>confidence
>that you can cut an ASF release).
>
>I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy.
Here's another possible way to think about it: A podling really should be
trying to graduate ASAP. My project only cut one release before
graduating. If you are pretty certain you are going to cut another
release before graduating, I would ship RC9 and fix it for the next
release. And even if you aren't going to cut another release before
graduating, since the point of incubation is education, unless anybody in
the IPMC thinks you haven't learned enough, I'd say you have.
That's because to me, an even more important aspect than choosing
"accuracy over speed" is whether your community and RM has the time and
energy to go through another RC after 9 RCs so far. Sometimes it is
better to ship and take a break from the RC train, especially if you are
sure you are going to cut another release while in incubation. The
foundation probably isn't at risk here. Community over code.
My 2 cents
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Or is your feeling that inclusion of the LICENSE is enough of a prominent
> statement?
In this case yes I can't see any reason to include it in NOTICE and LICENSE inclusion would be enough. But I'd be interested in what other IPMC people think.
Either way it’s not a big issue, at worst a minor documentation issue, but if NOTICEs can be kept small they should.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:27 PM Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The reason is that the license is a Cat B. Otherwise, I would advise to
> > include it in your notices file as well. NiFi does this well IMHO
> >
> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/d838f61291d2582592754a37314911b701c6891b/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-web/nifi-web-ui/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE
>
> As far as I can see there nothing in the OFL that makes it a required
> notice and for anything to be place in NOTICE. What am I missing?
>
TBH, I'm not sure, and I'm perfectly OK if someone says "no, you're wrong."
Most projects I've looked at have it within the NOTICE file. This seems
to line up with our application of it in the Cat B list though
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
Or is your feeling that inclusion of the LICENSE is enough of a prominent
statement?
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> The reason is that the license is a Cat B. Otherwise, I would advise to
> include it in your notices file as well. NiFi does this well IMHO
> https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/d838f61291d2582592754a37314911b701c6891b/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-web/nifi-web-ui/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE
As far as I can see there nothing in the OFL that makes it a required notice and for anything to be place in NOTICE. What am I missing?
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Perfect, thanks Dan.
I'll point out that after looking at the PR I do see one more issue. For
the font files, can you point to a public location for them? google tends
to provide a free service hosting a number of fonts.
The reason is that the license is a Cat B. Otherwise, I would advise to
include it in your notices file as well. NiFi does this well IMHO
https://github.com/apache/nifi/blob/d838f61291d2582592754a37314911b701c6891b/nifi-nar-bundles/nifi-framework-bundle/nifi-framework/nifi-web/nifi-web-ui/src/main/resources/META-INF/NOTICE
John
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:56 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks, John.. we do have a new PR that intends to address these
> issues (currently only in master):
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/285
>
> I intend to examine that tomorrow morning and pull it in to 1.8 if all
> looks good -- there will be a few changes needed to address diffs
> between 1.8 and master, but not significant. If you have a chance
> to look at that PR and give a thumbs-up, it would help greatly..
>
> thanks for all your help.. Dan
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:37 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <
> marvin@rectangular.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better
> make
> >> a
> >> > judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see
> why
> >> > we're now being jumped on over this fact.
> >>
> >> John,
> >>
> >> My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the
> >> vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone
> >> than was meant.
> >>
> >> Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release
> >> candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when
> >> approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later
> >> today.
> >>
> >
> > Marvin,
> >
> > Its OK. I myself am frazzled over lots of things going on around me.
> So I
> > know some of my responses as of late have either been way too
> > short/confrontational and too long/fillibustery. So I know where you're
> > coming from.
> >
> > I look forward to arguing with you over podling releases in a separate
> > thread.
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how
> to
> > shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
> > the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
> > however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think
> its
> > worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10,
> and
> > see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better
> confidence
> > that you can cut an ASF release).
> >
> > I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Marvin Humphrey
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, John.. we do have a new PR that intends to address these
issues (currently only in master):
https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/285
I intend to examine that tomorrow morning and pull it in to 1.8 if all
looks good -- there will be a few changes needed to address diffs
between 1.8 and master, but not significant. If you have a chance
to look at that PR and give a thumbs-up, it would help greatly..
thanks for all your help.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:37 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make
>> a
>> > judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
>> > we're now being jumped on over this fact.
>>
>> John,
>>
>> My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the
>> vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone
>> than was meant.
>>
>> Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release
>> candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when
>> approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later
>> today.
>>
>
> Marvin,
>
> Its OK. I myself am frazzled over lots of things going on around me. So I
> know some of my responses as of late have either been way too
> short/confrontational and too long/fillibustery. So I know where you're
> coming from.
>
> I look forward to arguing with you over podling releases in a separate
> thread.
>
> Dan,
>
> So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to
> shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
> the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
> however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think its
> worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10, and
> see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better confidence
> that you can cut an ASF release).
>
> I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy.
>
> John
>
>
>>
>> Marvin Humphrey
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/15/17, 4:37 PM, "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>Dan,
>
>So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to
>shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
>the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
>however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think its
>worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10,
>and
>see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better
>confidence
>that you can cut an ASF release).
>
>I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy.
Here's another possible way to think about it: A podling really should be
trying to graduate ASAP. My project only cut one release before
graduating. If you are pretty certain you are going to cut another
release before graduating, I would ship RC9 and fix it for the next
release. And even if you aren't going to cut another release before
graduating, since the point of incubation is education, unless anybody in
the IPMC thinks you haven't learned enough, I'd say you have.
That's because to me, an even more important aspect than choosing
"accuracy over speed" is whether your community and RM has the time and
energy to go through another RC after 9 RCs so far. Sometimes it is
better to ship and take a break from the RC train, especially if you are
sure you are going to cut another release while in incubation. The
foundation probably isn't at risk here. Community over code.
My 2 cents
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make
> a
> > judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
> > we're now being jumped on over this fact.
>
> John,
>
> My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the
> vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone
> than was meant.
>
> Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release
> candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when
> approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later
> today.
>
Marvin,
Its OK. I myself am frazzled over lots of things going on around me. So I
know some of my responses as of late have either been way too
short/confrontational and too long/fillibustery. So I know where you're
coming from.
I look forward to arguing with you over podling releases in a separate
thread.
Dan,
So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to
shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think its
worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10, and
see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better confidence
that you can cut an ASF release).
I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy.
John
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:10 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make
> a
> > judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
> > we're now being jumped on over this fact.
>
> John,
>
> My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the
> vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone
> than was meant.
>
> Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release
> candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when
> approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later
> today.
>
Marvin,
Its OK. I myself am frazzled over lots of things going on around me. So I
know some of my responses as of late have either been way too
short/confrontational and too long/fillibustery. So I know where you're
coming from.
I look forward to arguing with you over podling releases in a separate
thread.
Dan,
So here's my point of view. Justin's provided some more context on how to
shape licenses. If you feel very strongly that the release should go out
the door, the way it is, then I am OK with changing my vote to a +1. If
however, you're like me, and would prefer accuracy over speed, I think its
worth your time to fix the remaining license issues, package up a CR10, and
see that the IPMC votes +1 without reservations (it gives better confidence
that you can cut an ASF release).
I'm even willing to help you rewrite your license file for accuracy.
John
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make a
> judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
> we're now being jumped on over this fact.
John,
My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the
vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone
than was meant.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release
candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when
approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later
today.
Marvin Humphrey
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:00 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make a
> judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
> we're now being jumped on over this fact.
John,
My email was rushed because I wanted to preempt cancellation of the
vote. I see now that it can be read in a more confrontational tone
than was meant.
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the release
candidate. I'll make the case for more lenience in general when
approving incubating release candidates on a separate thread later
today.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> > You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
> > we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
> > voting process again..
> >
> > I'll go with whatever you recommend..
>
> Folks, we're on RC *nine*. The IPMC has the discretion to apply the
> "does it put the Foundation at risk" test for releases which don't
> follow policy yet are still legal. This would seem like a good time
> to be flexible.
>
While we're on RC9, the IPMC has only been presented with 2 votes. I have
no idea what happened between RC5 and RC9.
Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make a
judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
we're now being jumped on over this fact.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:05 PM Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> > You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
> > we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
> > voting process again..
> >
> > I'll go with whatever you recommend..
>
> Folks, we're on RC *nine*. The IPMC has the discretion to apply the
> "does it put the Foundation at risk" test for releases which don't
> follow policy yet are still legal. This would seem like a good time
> to be flexible.
>
While we're on RC9, the IPMC has only been presented with 2 votes. I have
no idea what happened between RC5 and RC9.
Personally, the reason why I'm asking about the impact is to better make a
judgment call on whether to block or not. I don't particularly see why
we're now being jumped on over this fact.
>
> Marvin Humphrey
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
> we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
> voting process again..
>
> I'll go with whatever you recommend..
Folks, we're on RC *nine*. The IPMC has the discretion to apply the
"does it put the Foundation at risk" test for releases which don't
follow policy yet are still legal. This would seem like a good time
to be flexible.
Marvin Humphrey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
> we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
> voting process again..
>
> I'll go with whatever you recommend..
Folks, we're on RC *nine*. The IPMC has the discretion to apply the
"does it put the Foundation at risk" test for releases which don't
follow policy yet are still legal. This would seem like a good time
to be flexible.
Marvin Humphrey
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>.
You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
voting process again..
I'll go with whatever you recommend..
thanks.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd like to know the effort required from your POV to fix the license
> file. Alex's description matches my expectations, thanks for clarifying
> it. I would rather not create a release that didn't match the licensing
> requirements, but will be OK if you come back saying its a huge effort
> (however, I can't imagine copy and pasting license contents is difficult).
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:14 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Alex..
>>
>> John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
>> any other major issues?
>>
>> thanks.. Dan
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>> >>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>> >>
>> >>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>> >>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>> >>
>> >>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>> >>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>> >>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
>> >
>> > AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
>> >
>> > This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
>> > MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
>> >
>> > Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
>> > in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
>> > own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
>> > project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
>> > third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
>> > advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
>> > for an incubating release.
>> >
>> > Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
>> > many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
>> >
>> > Of course, I could be wrong...
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>.
You're right -- fixing the license file is not a huge effort (now that
we understand what's expected..). The effort is in going thru the
voting process again..
I'll go with whatever you recommend..
thanks.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:58 AM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd like to know the effort required from your POV to fix the license
> file. Alex's description matches my expectations, thanks for clarifying
> it. I would rather not create a release that didn't match the licensing
> requirements, but will be OK if you come back saying its a huge effort
> (however, I can't imagine copy and pasting license contents is difficult).
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:14 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Alex..
>>
>> John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
>> any other major issues?
>>
>> thanks.. Dan
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>> >>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>> >>
>> >>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>> >>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>> >>
>> >>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>> >>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>> >>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
>> >
>> > AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
>> >
>> > This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
>> > MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
>> >
>> > Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
>> > in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
>> > own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
>> > project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
>> > third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
>> > advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
>> > for an incubating release.
>> >
>> > Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
>> > many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
>> >
>> > Of course, I could be wrong...
>> >
>> > -Alex
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'd like to know the effort required from your POV to fix the license
file. Alex's description matches my expectations, thanks for clarifying
it. I would rather not create a release that didn't match the licensing
requirements, but will be OK if you come back saying its a huge effort
(however, I can't imagine copy and pasting license contents is difficult).
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:14 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Alex..
>
> John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
> any other major issues?
>
> thanks.. Dan
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
> >>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
> >>
> >>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
> >>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
> >>
> >>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
> >>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
> >>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
> >
> > AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
> >
> > This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
> > MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
> >
> > Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
> > in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
> > own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
> > project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
> > third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
> > advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
> > for an incubating release.
> >
> > Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
> > many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong...
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I'd like to know the effort required from your POV to fix the license
file. Alex's description matches my expectations, thanks for clarifying
it. I would rather not create a release that didn't match the licensing
requirements, but will be OK if you come back saying its a huge effort
(however, I can't imagine copy and pasting license contents is difficult).
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:14 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks, Alex..
>
> John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
> any other major issues?
>
> thanks.. Dan
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
> >>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
> >>
> >>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
> >>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
> >>
> >>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
> >>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
> >>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
> >
> > AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
> >
> > This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
> > MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
> >
> > Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
> > in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
> > own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
> > project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
> > third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
> > advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
> > for an incubating release.
> >
> > Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
> > many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
> >
> > Of course, I could be wrong...
> >
> > -Alex
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Alex..
John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
any other major issues?
thanks.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>>
>>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>>
>>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
>
> AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
>
> This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
> MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
>
> Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
> in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
> own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
> project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
> third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
> advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
> for an incubating release.
>
> Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
> many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
>
> -Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>.
Thanks, Alex..
John -- would it be reasonable to fix this in the next release barring
any other major issues?
thanks.. Dan
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>>
>>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>>
>>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
>
> AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
>
> This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
> MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
>
> Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
> in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
> own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
> project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
> third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
> advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
> for an incubating release.
>
> Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
> many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
>
> Of course, I could be wrong...
>
> -Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>
>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>
>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
for an incubating release.
Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/15/17, 7:40 AM, "Dan Kirkwood" <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
>http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>
>`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
>distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
>
>Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
>separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
>Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
AIUI, a "pointer" is the text from that web page:
This product bundles SuperWidget 1.2.3, which is available under a
MIT license. For details, see deps/superwidget/LICENSE.txt.
Your build/packaging should copy the dependency's MIT License into a file
in the release package. MIT-licensed projects are supposed to have their
own copy of the MIT license in their release distributions with a
project-specific copyright. The pointer isn't supposed to be a
third-party URL since URLs are not stable, although I would have probably
advised you to fix that in the next release. IMO, it isn't a major flaw
for an incubating release.
Instead of a "pointer" you can copy whole license files into LICENSE, but
many prefer "pointers" to keep the LICENSE file shorter.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
>
> `In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
> distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
The pointer mentioned there is a file path to a text file in the release containing the full text of the license.
The problem with using URLs is that decay over time or their contents may change or the software may be re-released under another license.
> Is MIT a special case in this regard?
No, the it a condition of the license "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.” and most licenses have a clause similar to this.
Note that in a lot of cases you are abiding by this clause if the MIT licensed files in question have MIT headers. However in this case the MIT licensed JS files don’t have license headers.
> And in that case, do we need a separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
Yes as per terms of the MIT license, but it doesn’t have to be in the LICENSE file, a pointer to the full text is preferred, especially in the case of long/many licenses.
> Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
Sorry I’ve not had a chance to look in detail yet but will do in the next couple of days.
Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>.
Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
Thanks.. Dan
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1 license file still needs a lot of work.
>
> MIT licenses need to be explicitly included in the license, not just
> linked. In general, the license contents need to be in the LICENSE file,
> not just links to the licenses. In some cases, its done like this (full
> license headers copied) and in others there's a path link to the license.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Incubator PMC,
>>
>> The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
>> proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
>> kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
>> incubator release.
>>
>> The VOTE RESULT is here:
>>
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>>
>> The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
>> signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
>>
>> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
>>
>> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>>
>> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>>
>> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
>> included in the source artifact.
>>
>> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>>
>> Please review and vote:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>
>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@apache.org>.
Thanks, John.. I'm confused on this. According to
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps :
`In LICENSE, add a pointer to the dependency's license within the
distribution and a short note summarizing its licensing:`
Is MIT a special case in this regard? And in that case, do we need a
separate full license entry for each MIT-licensed component we use?
Is this RC acceptable other than the license issues you pointed out?
Thanks.. Dan
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1 license file still needs a lot of work.
>
> MIT licenses need to be explicitly included in the license, not just
> linked. In general, the license contents need to be in the LICENSE file,
> not just links to the licenses. In some cases, its done like this (full
> license headers copied) and in others there's a path link to the license.
>
> John
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Incubator PMC,
>>
>> The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
>> proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
>> kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
>> incubator release.
>>
>> The VOTE RESULT is here:
>>
>>
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>>
>> The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
>> signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
>>
>> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
>>
>> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>>
>> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>>
>> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
>> included in the source artifact.
>>
>> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>>
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>>
>> Please review and vote:
>>
>> [ ] +1 Approve the release
>> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>>
>> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> - Dan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
-1 license file still needs a lot of work.
MIT licenses need to be explicitly included in the license, not just
linked. In general, the license contents need to be in the LICENSE file,
not just links to the licenses. In some cases, its done like this (full
license headers copied) and in others there's a path link to the license.
John
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Incubator PMC,
>
> The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
> proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
> kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
> incubator release.
>
> The VOTE RESULT is here:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>
> The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
> signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
>
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
>
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>
> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
> included in the source artifact.
>
> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>
> Please review and vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Dan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Phil Sorber <so...@apache.org>.
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:28 AM Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Minor correction to the previous email -- the artifacts for RC9 are
> located here
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
> .
>
> Please review this RC and vote..
>
>
>
> The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
> proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
> kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
> incubator release.
>
> The VOTE RESULT is here:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>
> The draft release notes can be found here:
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org
>
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution is here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>
> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is included
> in the source artifact.
>
> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>
> Please review and vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Dan
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello Incubator PMC,
> >
> > The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
> > proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
> > kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
> > incubator release.
> >
> > The VOTE RESULT is here:
> >
> >
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
> > signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
> >
> > http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
> >
> > The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
> >
> > The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
> >
> >
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
> >
> > Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
> > included in the source artifact.
> >
> > Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
> >
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
> >
> > Please review and vote:
> >
> > [ ] +1 Approve the release
> > [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
> >
> > This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Dan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com>.
Minor correction to the previous email -- the artifacts for RC9 are
located here https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/.
Please review this RC and vote..
The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
incubator release.
The VOTE RESULT is here:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
The draft release notes can be found here:
http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org
The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
The source distribution is here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is included
in the source artifact.
Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
Please review and vote:
[ ] +1 Approve the release
[ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
Thanks,
- Dan
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Incubator PMC,
>
> The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
> proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
> kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
> incubator release.
>
> The VOTE RESULT is here:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>
> The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
> signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
>
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
>
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>
> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
> included in the source artifact.
>
> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>
> Please review and vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>
> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
> included in the source artifact.
>
> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>
> Please review and vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
+1 (binding)
Validated Checksums, signatures, tarball contents matches git tag.
Spot-checked LICENSE/NOTICES vs issues raised in previous votes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>
> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
> included in the source artifact.
>
> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>
> Please review and vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
+1 (binding)
Validated Checksums, signatures, tarball contents matches git tag.
Spot-checked LICENSE/NOTICES vs issues raised in previous votes.
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC9)
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
-1 license file still needs a lot of work.
MIT licenses need to be explicitly included in the license, not just
linked. In general, the license contents need to be in the LICENSE file,
not just links to the licenses. In some cases, its done like this (full
license headers copied) and in others there's a path link to the license.
John
On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 2:38 PM Dan Kirkwood <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Incubator PMC,
>
> The Apache Traffic Control community has voted on and approved a
> proposal to release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating. We now
> kindly request that the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this
> incubator release.
>
> The VOTE RESULT is here:
>
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4aa7f70b34ba9d2e4190301ae7ea118aa86b297c81e60467aedaf3dc@%3Cdev.trafficcontrol.apache.org%3E
>
> The draft release notes (along with links to artifacts,
> signatures/checksums, and updated documentation) can be found here:
>
> http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/downloads/
>
> The git tag for the repository is "RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9":
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/releases/tag/RELEASE-1.8.0-RC9
>
> The source distribution (also linked in the release notes) is here:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/1.8.0/RC9/
>
> Build instructions are included in the BUILD.md file which is
> included in the source artifact.
>
> Artifacts have been signed with the "dangogh@apache.org" key listed in:
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/KEYS
>
> Please review and vote:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] -1 Don't approve the release (please provide specific comments)
>
> This vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - Dan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>