Thank Craig.
> For the next release vote (both dev@ and general@ lists) please include a
> check list for folks to use to validate the release. A simple +1 doesn't
> really mean anything.
We will make clear the check rules with PPMC members and everyone else.
"Binding" is a specific term
>
> > This problem with -LICENSE and NOTIC , do we need to remove the licenses
> > and notices of Category B and X?
Only licenses from software included in the source release need to be
> mentioned in LICENSE and NOTICE not all dependancies. This may make the
> LICENSE file different for
Hi,
> This problem with -LICENSE and NOTIC , do we need to remove the licenses
> and notices of Category B and X?
Only licenses from software included in the source release need to be mentioned
in LICENSE and NOTICE not all dependancies. This may make the LICENSE file
different for the
Hi,
For the next release vote (both dev@ and general@ lists) please include a check
list for folks to use to validate the release. A simple +1 doesn't really mean
anything.
"Binding" is a specific term of art at Apache. For a podling release vote, it
means the voter is a member of the IPMC.
Hi. Justin
---LICENSE and NOTICE are not correct and include licenses that are not
Category A licenses. One;y code that is Category A can be included in a
source release and there should be no reason to mention any other Category
B or Category X software. The license and notice should represent
Hi Mclean and Kirs,
Thanks for the checking and guidances. I'd cancel this vote here, will
re-initiate a vote after solved the problems you indicated.
Thanks again for helping Linkis become a better, more Apache Way compliant
project :)
Shuai Di
Best Regards.
Justin Mclean 于2022年1月7日周五
Hi Yonglun,
Thanks for the checking and guidances!
- signatures and hashes are fine
[reply] We used gpg --print-md SHA512 to generate the hashes which caused
the format problem. Will change to shasum instead.
- No unexpected binary files
In the src package, there are binary files:
Hi,
Sorry but t’s -1 binding from me.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes are fine
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE are not correct and include licenses that are not Category
A licenses. One;y code that is Category A can be included in a source release
and there
朱辉 于2022年1月7日周五 12:07写道：
>+1(binding)
>
Hi, only IPMC's vote is binding.
>
>I checked：
> [ √] Download links are valid.
> [ √] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
> [ √] Source code distributions have correct names matching the current
> release.
> [√ ] LICENSE and
Hi:
I suggest to re-initiate a vote on the dev mailing list. I observed the
dev's voting thread. There are very few valid votes for PPMC. Most people
only have a simple +1 without listing their own checklist result
.
Zhang Yonglun 于2022年1月7日周五 11:43写道：
> Hi,
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> I checked:
+1(binding)
I checked：
[ √] Download links are valid.
[ √] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[ √] Source code distributions have correct names matching the current
release.
[√ ] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct for each Linkis repo.
[ √] All files have license
Hi,
Hope this helps.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes are fine
signatures are fine, but hashes I'm not sure, this is what prompted when I
checked:
shasum: apache-linkis-1.0.3-incubating-bin.tar.gz.sha512: no properly
formatted SHA1 checksum lines found
- Disclaimer
+1
On 2022/01/06 14:54:03 Shuai Di wrote:
> Hello Incubator Community,
>
> The Apache Linkis community has voted and approved the release of Apache
> Linkis(incubating) 1.0.3-RC1. We now kindly request IPMC members and the
> incubator community to help review and vote for this release.
>
>
Hello Incubator Community,
The Apache Linkis community has voted and approved the release of Apache
Linkis(incubating) 1.0.3-RC1. We now kindly request IPMC members and the
incubator community to help review and vote for this release.
Apache Linkis builds a computation middleware layer to
14 matches
Mail list logo
