You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Aaron McCurry <am...@apache.org> on 2015/07/17 03:06:29 UTC
[VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Hello Incubators,
We are happy to announce Blur 0.2.4-incubating is ready for release.
The release artifacts can be found at this location:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/blur/0.2.4-incubating/
The source distribution is provided by:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/blur/0.2.4-incubating/apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src.tar.gz
Two binary distribution is provided for user convenience:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/blur/0.2.4-incubating/apache-blur-hadoop2-2.6.0-0.2.4-incubating-bin.tar.gz
The tag in Apache Git can be found here:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-blur.git;a=tag;h=2b2fad6f4caf14c4019bba9eafb9dd62ed7cdcae
The release notes are available here:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12327386&styleName=Html&projectId=12313721
Finally, the blur-dev@incubator [VOTE] thread can be found at this location:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-blur-dev/201507.mbox/%3CCAB6tTr2wKdTf8t585yvGTiqaebd_TcfnAnhdm0ZdM-YA9Jb%2BuA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
Result summery: +1 (1 binding, 1 non-binding), 0 (0), -1 (0)
The [VOTE] will be open for the next 72 hours --- closing Sunday (July
19th) at 9:30pm (EST).
Thanks!
Aaron
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Posted by Aaron McCurry <am...@gmail.com>.
Justin thank you for taking the time to evaluate the release.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to review Justin, we appreciate it.
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved /
> explained, other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may
> be that "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF
> product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2]
>
> I think we just missed it, based on the example, I don't think we can
> use that escape-clause/rationale for its inclusion. We should take it
> back to the dev list at this point.
>
I agree. I will cancel the vote and we will retry soon.
Aaron
>
> > For the source release I checked:
> > - filename contains incubating
> > - signatures and hashes good
> > - DISCLAIMER exists
> > - LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2]
> > - NOTICE good
> > - Some unexpected binaries in source (see below)
> > - All source file have headers
> > - Can compile form source?
> >
> > LiCENSE is missing:
> > - MIT licensed normalize.css (see
> ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css
> +
> ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less)
> > - MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js)
> >
> > There is an issue with
> ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this is MPL
> licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license.
> In this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being
> included in source not binary form. I’m not sure how this should be handled
> given there is no compiled JS form.
> >
> >
> > There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be
> produced via the build process?
> > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar
> > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar
>
> Yeah, these were just to drive some tests but I reckon we should craft
> another way that ships in source form.
>
> > Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the
> ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is there
> any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they
> are used to generate the binary NOTICE file?
> >
>
> They're sources needed to produce a [valid] binary package so it
> seemed reasonable to me include them.
>
> > For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is
> identical to the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor
> issue in that there is no need to repeat "This product includes software
> developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4].
> >
> > Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be
> helpful as it seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is
> expected. (As far as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and nothing
> else?)
>
> Yeah, we should add something to the README that hints at the
> quickstart or profiles: mvn install -Dhadoop2
>
> Thanks again for taking your time...
>
> Thanks,
> --tim
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@me.com>.
Hi,
> I think we just missed it, based on the example, I don't think we can
> use that escape-clause/rationale for its inclusion. We should take it
> back to the dev list at this point.
Hope it easily replaceable with something that’s more Apache license compatable.
> Yeah, these were just to drive some tests but I reckon we should craft
> another way that ships in source form.
If it’s easy to do that would be preferable.
> They're sources needed to produce a [valid] binary package so it
> seemed reasonable to me include them.
Perhaps a README or NOTE in the directory saying that?
Thanks,
Justin
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Posted by Tim Williams <wi...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for taking the time to review Justin, we appreciate it.
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained, other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2]
I think we just missed it, based on the example, I don't think we can
use that escape-clause/rationale for its inclusion. We should take it
back to the dev list at this point.
> For the source release I checked:
> - filename contains incubating
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2]
> - NOTICE good
> - Some unexpected binaries in source (see below)
> - All source file have headers
> - Can compile form source?
>
> LiCENSE is missing:
> - MIT licensed normalize.css (see ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css + ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less)
> - MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js)
>
> There is an issue with ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this is MPL licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. In this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being included in source not binary form. I’m not sure how this should be handled given there is no compiled JS form.
>
>
> There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be produced via the build process?
> ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar
> ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar
Yeah, these were just to drive some tests but I reckon we should craft
another way that ships in source form.
> Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is there any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they are used to generate the binary NOTICE file?
>
They're sources needed to produce a [valid] binary package so it
seemed reasonable to me include them.
> For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is identical to the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor issue in that there is no need to repeat "This product includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4].
>
> Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be helpful as it seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is expected. (As far as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and nothing else?)
Yeah, we should add something to the README that hints at the
quickstart or profiles: mvn install -Dhadoop2
Thanks again for taking your time...
Thanks,
--tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained, other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2]
For the source release I checked:
- filename contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2]
- NOTICE good
- Some unexpected binaries in source (see below)
- All source file have headers
- Can compile form source?
LiCENSE is missing:
- MIT licensed normalize.css (see ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css + ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less)
- MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js)
There is an issue with ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this is MPL licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. In this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being included in source not binary form. I’m not sure how this should be handled given there is no compiled JS form.
There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be produced via the build process?
./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar
./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar
Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is there any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they are used to generate the binary NOTICE file?
For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is identical to the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor issue in that there is no need to repeat "This product includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4].
Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be helpful as it seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is expected. (As far as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and nothing else?)
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
2. http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary
4. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundle-asf-product
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org