Hello, It's good to avoid non-readable files when possible but I don't think we have to worry too much about it.
The ASF foundation does not require all files in a release to be protected by copyright law and lists a few exceptions [1]. The file is a database dump so I don't see much creativity involved so it could be classified under the following case. "A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file does not require a license header." Based on my understanding of the policy, I don't see a problem leaving this file as is even after 1.24 but if there are doubts I can ping legal@. Best, Stamatis [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:54 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Il Gio 16 Lug 2020, 21:28 Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > Michael, > > > > I think that sentence covers the situation where, say, we ship a > > .class file without shipping the .java it was generated from. > > > > In our case, we are shipping the equivalent of the .class file and the > > .java file (namely EMP.ibd and the scott.sql that MySQL generated it > > from). We have to ship the .class file equivalent (.ibd) because we > > don't require that people running the tests have the javac equivalent > > (MySQL). > > > > The concern about auditability remains. > > > > You can wrap the files in a text based format with a readable license > header and the test case can unpack the files and use them. It is tricky > but it can work > > > Enrico > > > > Julian > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 8:34 AM Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I don't personally have a problem with this, but it seems as though it > > > might violate the release policy. Specifically the statement "It is > > > also necessary for the PMC to ensure that the source package is > > > sufficient to build any binary artifacts associated with the release." > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Mior > > > mm...@apache.org > > > > > > Le mer. 15 juil. 2020 à 20:02, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> a écrit > : > > > > > > > > TL;DR: PMC members, would you vote for a release 1.24 if it includes > > > > binary files necessary for testing? > > > > > > > > I would like to include the InnoDB adapter [1] in release 1.24. It is > > > > well written, well documented, and it is ready. > > > > > > > > There is one problem: there are some binary files (in InnoDB format) > > > > [2] that are included for testing. As a general rule, Apache does not > > > > release binary files as part of the source release because they are > > > > difficult to audit for provenance. > > > > > > > > I think we should make an exception, for just release 1.24, because > > > > the files are small (just EMP and DEPT tables) and generated by hand. > > > > > > > > I have asked the author to do a follow-up task to remove the files > > > > before next release. > > > > > > > > PMC members, please reply to this email and indicate whether this > > > > would cause you to vote -1 on the upcoming release. > > > > > > > > Julian > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-4034 > > > > > > > > [2] > > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/tree/b5e1622e7a43a3468a880c374f9161eee3ffa1ea/innodb/src/test/resources/data > > >
