by "HEAD", I meant "master"...
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> wrote: > yep -- it appears that > https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/commit/ad28f33fea62cc5ce2c5a7a667b8cf9f06b7b7a2 > removed the juju/persistentcookie dependency which is what used that > library. > > It appears to still be there in HEAD as well, so that would need to > be fixed.. I'll file an issue on it.. > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> The script only checks what's present in the repo. It's possible that the >> backport took the dependency out and we just missed deleting the vendored >> files. >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:21 AM Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Chris, I thought the GPL license in the TS dir was taken care of, >>> maybe we are missing a backport? >>> I will have to take a look at that as time allows. >>> >>> Dan, if the postinstall changes are too much to backport, we should look at >>> documenting what needs to be done to get the software installed, that might >>> be sufficient. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Chris Lemmons <alfic...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Dave, I haven't run RAT, but I did just run the custom license tool for >>> TC >>> > and this is what it says: >>> > >>> > Error Unknown-Text! >>> > traffic_monitor_golang/common/util/num.go >>> > Error Unknown-Text! >>> > traffic_monitor_golang/traffic_monitor/crconfig/data.go >>> > Error Unknown-Bourne-Again! >>> > traffic_ops/app/db/pg-migration/runwaiter.sh >>> > Error GPL/LGPL! traffic_stats/vendor/ >>> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/LICENSE >>> > Error GPL/LGPL~! traffic_stats/vendor/ >>> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/clock.go >>> > Error GPL/LGPL~! traffic_stats/vendor/ >>> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/exp.go >>> > Error GPL/LGPL! traffic_stats/vendor/ >>> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/regular.go >>> > Error GPL/LGPL! traffic_stats/vendor/ >>> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/retry.go >>> > Error GPL/LGPL~! traffic_stats/vendor/ >>> > gopkg.in/retry.v1/strategy.go >>> > There are problematic licenses. >>> > >>> > Looks like two go files and one shell file missing it's apache header, >>> plus >>> > a problematic GPL component. >>> > >>> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:46 AM Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >>> > efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > > There is an issue that Jeff E will take care of later this week that >>> is a >>> > > showstopper. >>> > > >>> > > Also Dan was going to look into seeing if we needed more post >>> > > install/postgres fixes back ported to 2.0.x so it could be useful. >>> > > >>> > > —Eric >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > On May 17, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > Hey All, >>> > > > We had some great discussion about the 2.0 release at the summit, I >>> was >>> > > > wondering if anyone had a summary of that discussion and a list of >>> > what's >>> > > > left to do that could be added to this thread? I think we discussed >>> > that >>> > > > we were going to take another look at 2.0 and see if it is a viable >>> > > release >>> > > > that we should move forward with, is that everyone else's >>> understanding >>> > > as >>> > > > well? >>> > > > Does anyone know of any showstopper issues that still exist? >>> > > > >>> > > > Thanks, >>> > > > Dave >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >>> > > > efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > >> Update: >>> > > >> - License issue has been fixed- Thanks Rob! >>> > > >> - Postinstall script is broken, Jeff and Dan are looking at it. >>> > > >> >>> > > >> Once post install is fixed, I will cut an RC >>> > > >> >>> > > >> —Eric >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> On Apr 6, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Dewayne Richardson <dewr...@gmail.com> >>> > > >> wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> +1 >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Robert Butts < >>> > robert.o.bu...@gmail.com >>> > > > >>> > > >>> wrote: >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>>> +1 >>> > > >>>> I didn't realize it was new. >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Dan Kirkwood <dang...@gmail.com> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >>>>> +1 >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 7:43 AM, David Neuman < >>> > > david.neuma...@gmail.com >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>> Since the Cookie Jar functionality is new to 2.0 and 2.0 is not >>> > yet >>> > > >>>>>> released, why don't we just remove the `ResumeSession` method >>> all >>> > > >>>>> together >>> > > >>>>>> and eliminate the dependency? Otherwise we are deprecating >>> > > something >>> > > >>>>> that >>> > > >>>>>> we never formally released. >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Robert Butts < >>> > > >> robert.o.bu...@gmail.com >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Regarding `TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license >>> issue`: >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> It looks like the persistent cookie jar is only needed by >>> Traffic >>> > > Ops >>> > > >>>>>>> Client `ResumeSession(toURL string, insecure bool) (*Session, >>> > > >> error)`. >>> > > >>>>>>> Nothing in Traffic Control uses `ResumeSession`, and I doubt >>> > anyone >>> > > >>>>> else is >>> > > >>>>>>> using it. Because it returns an error, and persisted cookies >>> have >>> > > >>>>>>> lifetimes, any current users already must handle errors from >>> > > >> persisted >>> > > >>>>>>> cookies being expired. Thus, we can change it to always return >>> an >>> > > >>>> error >>> > > >>>>>>> with only degraded performance (and not much, login is cheap), >>> > > >> without >>> > > >>>>> loss >>> > > >>>>>>> of functionality. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> To fix TC-119, I propose we document `ResumeSession` as >>> > deprecated, >>> > > >>>> and >>> > > >>>>>>> change it to always return an error, which lets us remove the >>> > > >>>>> dependency, >>> > > >>>>>>> without the development cost of writing our own persistent >>> cookie >>> > > >>>> store >>> > > >>>>>>> that no one is using. >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> Any objections? >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Jeremy Mitchell < >>> > > >>>> mitchell...@gmail.com> >>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> These all got fixed and backported to 2.0: >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >>> > > >>>>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >>> > > >>>>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> So Jan and Dave just need to close the issues. >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Jeffrey Martin < >>> > > >>>>> martin.jef...@gmail.com >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Eric, >>> > > >>>>>>>>> I was going to address the immediate Postinstall issues >>> > TC-185. I >>> > > >>>> am >>> > > >>>>>>> way >>> > > >>>>>>>>> late on this. I created a fork yesterday, need to run a >>> couple >>> > of >>> > > >>>>> tests >>> > > >>>>>>>> and >>> > > >>>>>>>>> then I can push to this fork. >>> > > >>>>>>>>> Jeff Martin >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < >>> > > >>>>>>>>> efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> We have some release blockers for 2.0. Specifically: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-119: traffic_ops/client dependency license issue >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> We cannot ship with Category-X LGPL software, so I’m >>> waiting >>> > > >>>>> for >>> > > >>>>>>>> this >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> to be resolved before cutting a release branch >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> "TC-185 post install doesn’t run due to missing perl module” >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> We shouldn’t ship a release in which the install process >>> is >>> > > >>>>>>> broken >>> > > >>>>>>>> in >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> this way. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> *There’s no assignee yet for this, any volunteers?* >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I think if we can get those two taken care of we can cut an >>> > RC0 >>> > > >>>>> later >>> > > >>>>>>>>> this >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> week. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Major bugs we will ship with (unless someone objects): >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-203: Mojo doesn’t set cachable headers on public files” >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-190: TTL type mismatch in CrConfig >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> TC-189: ssl_multicert.config too slow >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> —Eric >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2017, at 1:13 PM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org >>> > >>> > > >>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Good question. I would also like to see us try to get some >>> > > >>>>> release >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> candidates out for 2.0. I am pretty sure the actual >>> install >>> > > >>>> and >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> postinstall need work. There are also a couple of issue >>> that >>> > > >>>>> are >>> > > >>>>>>>> still >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> assigned to 2.0 and unresolved: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC/fixforversion/ >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> 12338562/?selectedTab=com.atlassian.jira.jira-projects- >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> plugin:version-summary-panel >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> . >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Jan van Doorn < >>> > > >>>> j...@knutsel.com >>> > > >>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> When are we planning to release 2.0? We at Comcast are >>> > > >>>> running >>> > > >>>>>>> what >>> > > >>>>>>>> we >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> call 2.0…. So we are +1, I am pretty sure. >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Eric: are you waiting for something? Which cats need >>> > herding? >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Rgds, >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> JvD >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>>>> >>> > > >>>>> >>> > > >>>> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>>
