Thanks Roman for the verification! We will fix the issue and keep updated in the community.
Best regards, Ruilong Huo On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Ruilong Huo <h...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > The PPMC vote for the Apache HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating release has passed. > We > > kindly request that the IPMC now vote on the release. > > > > The PPMC vote thread is located here: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/a7c780cf5655679fa5c0cbe5a8d247 > 77cd0439601266260859f935ef@%3Cdev.hawq.apache.org%3E > > > > The artifacts can be downloaded here: > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/hawq/2.2.0. > 0-incubating.RC2/ > > > > The artifacts have been signed with Key: 1B8B6872. > > > > All JIRAs completed for this release are tagged with 'FixVersion = > > 2.2.0.0-incubating'. You can view them here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > projectId=12318826&version=12339641 > > > > Please vote accordingly: > > [ ] +1, accept as the official Apache HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating release > > [ ] -1, do not accept as the official Apache HAWQ 2.2.0.0-incubating > > release because... > > The vote will run for at least 72 hours. > > I do apologize for a delay -- I should've provided this feedback last > feedback > last week, but it seems I'll be voting: > > -1 (binding) > > on the binary portion of this releases. Here's why: > 1. The deal breaker issue is a total lack of clear IP attribution in > binary artifacts. There's no proper LICENSE, NOTICE and > DISCLAIMER file in neither the x86 binary package of HAWQ > nor in the JAVA packages of companion components. This > need to be fixed as per: > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#binary > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/release-java.html#notes > Note that you HAVE to account to all the dependencies you're > bundling in a binary release which means your LICENSE and > NOTICE files will likely get bigger. For Java side of HAWQ > Apache Geode offers a good place to look for how to deal with > those files in a binary distribution. > > 2. This is one is less of a deal deal breaker for the first release, > but > will be so for subsequent ones: you really shouldn't be shipping > apache-tomcat package. For one, you already have a dependency > on bigtop-tomcat in hawq-ranger-plugin which means shipping > apache-tomcat is wasteful, could conflicting with distribution RPM > names and frankly looks a bit sloppy coming from the same project. > > 3. This is even less of a dealbreaker than #2, but it may help you > simplify solving for #1: I don't think you need to ship all those > extra dependencies in hawq-ranger-plugin -- a much better option > is getting them from a classpath just like other Java packages of > HAWQ do. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
