[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc6 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

The vote for releasing Apache Toree 0.1.0 (incubating) passed
with 4 binding "+1" votes, and no "0" or "-1" votes.

Binding votes:
Luciano Resende +1
Josh Elser +1
Hitesh Shah +1
Katherine Marsden +1

Thank you for the participation!

Signed,
Chip Senkbeil

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:13 PM Chip Senkbeil <chip.senkb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
> (incubating) version 0.1.0.
>
> A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.
>
> PPMC vote result thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44231a84f4034482b81bd034d800e1f03243e21894da8550a75ae389@
>
> PPMC vote thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f5decfdd2e44ea310253ab037239713c5a4cfbb0d9f733b1197ffddf@
>
> The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc6
> (51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7), located here:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc6/
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc
>
> The list of keys associated with Toree is available at:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc
>
> Staging artifacts can be found at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1006/
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!
>
> The vote is open for a minimum of 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> To learn more about Apache Toree, please see
> http://toree.incubator.apache.org/
>
> Instructions on testing Apache Toree can be found in the vote thread.
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc6 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

Anyone available to help us get the vote started?

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:13 PM Chip Senkbeil <chip.senkb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
> (incubating) version 0.1.0.
>
> A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.
>
> PPMC vote result thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44231a84f4034482b81bd034d800e1f03243e21894da8550a75ae389@
>
> PPMC vote thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f5decfdd2e44ea310253ab037239713c5a4cfbb0d9f733b1197ffddf@
>
> The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc6
> (51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7), located here:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc6/
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc
>
> The list of keys associated with Toree is available at:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc
>
> Staging artifacts can be found at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1006/
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!
>
> The vote is open for a minimum of 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> To learn more about Apache Toree, please see
> http://toree.incubator.apache.org/
>
> Instructions on testing Apache Toree can be found in the vote thread.
>

[VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc6 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
(incubating) version 0.1.0.

A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.

PPMC vote result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/44231a84f4034482b81bd034d800e1f03243e21894da8550a75ae389@

PPMC vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/f5decfdd2e44ea310253ab037239713c5a4cfbb0d9f733b1197ffddf@

The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc6
(51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7), located here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/51fa49cb5898e0c5b7824f986382436b969cabc7

All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc6/

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc

The list of keys associated with Toree is available at:
https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc

Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1006/

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!

The vote is open for a minimum of 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

To learn more about Apache Toree, please see
http://toree.incubator.apache.org/

Instructions on testing Apache Toree can be found in the vote thread.

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

Hi everyone,

Based on feedback we've received regarding issues with this release
candidate, we are preparing a new candidate to address those issues.

- The following test jars have been replaced with code to compile source
and build jars at runtime to provide the same test functionality:
- ScalaTestJar.jar
- TestJar.jar
- TestJar2.jar
- The sparkr_bundle.tar.gz archive has been removed. We were maintaining a
fork of SparkR that added functionality we needed to support a SparkR
interpreter. We have remedied this to use private SparkR APIs directly.
- Likewise, the sparktestjar_2.10-1.0.jar file has been removed since we no
longer need to maintain a fork of SparkR.

Our build system required sbt to build our source code and we currently
have some logic that depends on you being inside a git project. We didn't
consider that the source release was not a git project. We'll have to look
into rectifying that. With regard to sbt, Apache Spark includes a build
script for sbt here: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/build/sbt Can
we grab that script and use it? That would work to fix the problem of not
having sbt installed.

Justin, with regard to your comments about the LICENSE and NOTICE files:
- The copyright date is wrong in the NOTICE file as you said. My fault for
not changing it after the new year. I'll address that.
- With regard to the copyrights being in the LICENSE file, that should only
be happening for our binary distribution. It's a bug in our build that is
also including the copyrights in the source distribution. I'll remedy the
source version to not include the copyrights in the LICENSE file. We do
still need those in the binary distribution, correct? We've been told a
variety of items to include and not include, so I want to make sure we get
them right.
- With the removal of the SparkR fork from our code, there should be no 3rd
party source code in our release for the next candidate; so, no worries
about ASF headers there.
- I never noticed the \n literal character appearing in our generated
LICENSE and NOTICE files. I'll address that as well.

As for the failure to build with make: *** No rule to make target
`etc/legal/LICENSE_extras, we are planning to get rid of that target from
our Makefile as we are not generating that file. Is there a specific place
we should put the extra license information (etc/legal/LICENSE_extras is
where it lives now in our repo)? We were not including the file in our
source distribution because it was being concatenated with the LICENSE
directly as part of packaging the source distribution (which should only be
done for binary distributions?). Should people be able to build the binary
distribution LICENSE, NOTICE, etc from source?

Signed,
Chip Senkbeil

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 4:43 PM Chip Senkbeil <chip.senkb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
> (incubating) version 0.1.0.
>
> A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.
>
> PPMC vote result thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5589e9b729333b0d95ccea639fcacf03fdc3d9480aaeb8e80399ad35@
> 
>
> PPMC vote thread:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/493874de453d9ccbdbc3aecc2f527dea6af82d657104732d726e07f9@
> 
>
> The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc4
> (1d526954ecaba1d5dc0f40ec555dd598b2b11df7), located here:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/1d526954ecaba1d5dc0f40ec555dd598b2b11df7
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be
> found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc4/
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc
>
> The list of keys associated with Toree is available at:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc
>
> Staging artifacts can be found at:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1002/
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours - until Monday, January 16, at 22:43 UTC -
> and passes if a majority of at least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> To learn more about Apache Toree, please see
> http://toree.incubator.apache.org/
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

Can't tell if my other mail got through. Do I need to open a new thread to
indicate that the vote stays open for more than 72 hours? Or is it okay to
make that statement here and keep this thread open?

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 11:19 AM Ian Dunlop <ianwdun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I wonder if it would be better to say
>
> "The vote is open for *at least* 72 hours " (ie will not be closed until
> at least 72 hours have passed)
>
> rather than
>
> "The vote is open for 72 hours " (ie will definitely be closed in 72 hours
> regardless of votes)
>
> The first version means that you have the option to keep the vote open
> after the 72 hours have passed in case you don't have enough votes gathered.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 16/01/17 15:34, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
> Bringing up my +1 from dev list.
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Chip Senkbeil <chip.senkb...@gmail.com> 
> <chip.senkb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
> (incubating) version 0.1.0.
>
> A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.
>
> PPMC vote result 
> thread:https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5589e9b729333b0d95ccea639fcacf
> 03fdc3d9480aaeb8e80399ad35@
> 
>
> PPMC vote 
> thread:https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/493874de453d9ccbdbc3aecc2f527d
> ea6af82d657104732d726e07f9@
> 
>
> The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc4
> (1d526954ecaba1d5dc0f40ec555dd598b2b11df7), located 
> here:https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/
> 1d526954ecaba1d5dc0f40ec555dd598b2b11df7
>
> All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
> at:https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc4/
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following 
> key:https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc
>
> The list of keys associated with Toree is available 
> at:https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc
>
> Staging artifacts can be found 
> at:https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1002/
>
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!
>
> The vote is open for 72 hours - until Monday, January 16, at 22:43 UTC -
> and passes if a majority of at least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
>
> To learn more about Apache Toree, please seehttp://toree.incubator.apache.org/
>
>
>
>
>

[VOTE] Apache Toree (incubating) 0.1.0-rc4 as 0.1.0

[Chip Senkbeil]

Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache Toree
(incubating) version 0.1.0.

A vote on this release has passed within the Toree PPMC.

PPMC vote result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/5589e9b729333b0d95ccea639fcacf03fdc3d9480aaeb8e80399ad35@


PPMC vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/493874de453d9ccbdbc3aecc2f527dea6af82d657104732d726e07f9@


The tag to be voted on is v0.1.0-rc4
(1d526954ecaba1d5dc0f40ec555dd598b2b11df7), located here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-toree/commit/1d526954ecaba1d5dc0f40ec555dd598b2b11df7

All distribution packages, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/toree/0.1.0/rc4/

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/chipsenkbeil.asc

The list of keys associated with Toree is available at:
https://people.apache.org/keys/group/toree.asc

Staging artifacts can be found at:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachetoree-1002/

Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating!

The vote is open for 72 hours - until Monday, January 16, at 22:43 UTC -
and passes if a majority of at least 3 +1 IPMC votes are cast.

[ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Toree 0.1.0-incubating
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...

To learn more about Apache Toree, please see
http://toree.incubator.apache.org/

Re: Update on Apache Toree and LGPL dependency

[Chip Senkbeil]

Just wanted to give a status update with this one. JeroMQ is down to just
four contributors that have not responded. The current, active committers
for JeroMQ have reverted the commits for one of the contributors here:

https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/pull/333

So, progress is still being made on this one!

> +1
>
> > On Mar 6, 2016, at 6:58 PM, Gino Bustelo  wrote:
> >
> > @john The 0mq ecosystem is made up of many projects of different sizes
and maturity.
> In the case of JeroMQ, the committers are showing an overwhelming
momentum to transition to
> MPL. I don't see any reason for us to consider any other alternative at
this juncture.
> >
> > Gino B.
> >
> >> On Mar 5, 2016, at 11:42 PM, Henri Yandell  wrote:
> >>
> >> Having chatted around the 0mq community in the past; I've confidence in
> >> their desire to move to MPL; and 26/32 committers is a great step
forward.
> >> You raise a good reservation though John - if you remove the blocker
on the
> >> usage side, it's easy for the licensing to remain as is.
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm +1 for releasing, with a prominent note of the LGPL dependency
(along
> >> with a note of the resolution plan). It might be that the Toree
committers
> >> may be motivated to rewrite code over at 0mq if there ends up being any
> >> committers who are unavailable or unwilling to relicense.
> >>
> >> Hen
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 3:45 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, misread the revision I was looking at.  The intent to move to
MPL
> >>> was done on March 22 2014, 2 years ago this month, not December 2013.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:41 PM John D. Ament 
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  I have some reservations with what you're proposing, and would like
you
> >>> to
>  consult w/ legal-discuss on this first.
> 
>  There's a difference between what Mynewt did and what you're
proposing.
>  Specifically, this was a transitive dependency that they relied upon
>  indirectly, so its more of a call out for the library that was
leveraging
>  it.  They also intended to replace the library.
> 
>  In your case, you're directly tied to a presently LGPL'd library.
You
>  have no intentions (from what I can see) of moving off of the
library.
> 
>  I'm also doubting their long term goals of moving to MPL.  If you
look at
>  [1], you'll see that the page hasn't been updated since October
2014.  In
>  addition, looking at the pages revision history (the beauty of
wikis),
> >>> the
>  intent to move to MPL was published in December 2013, making the
> >>> statement
>  over 2 years old.
> 
>  I think while this might be OK for an initial incubator release, the
>  project needs to weigh very heavily if it wants to continue to
leverage
>  ZeroMQ or not going forward.
> 
>  [1]: http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
> 
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 5:06 PM Gino Bustelo 
> wrote:
> >
> > Wanted to give folks an update on our progress with dealing with
JeroMQ,
> > an
> > LGPL package that enables us to communicate via 0MQ. The 0MQ
community
> >>> is
> > very aware of the issues with LGPL (LGPLv3 + static link exception)
and
> >>> it
> > is their intention to try to move projects to MPL v2. This is not an
> >>> easy
> > task depending on the age and size of the projects.
> >
> > Apache Toree's API access point is through the 0MQ transport layer
> >>> (using
> > JeroMQ) and that is how Apache Toree connects out-of-the-box with
> >>> Jupyter,
> > a very common way of consuming Apache Toree that is already in
> >>> production.
> >
> > At this point, the JeroMQ project is still released under LGPL, but
our
> > team initiated communications in mid-February with members of the
JeroMQ
> > community to begin their transition to MPL v2 (
> > https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/326). The JeroMQ community
> > reacted
> > very positively and quickly began the process of collecting votes
from
> > their committers (https://github.com/zeromq/jeromq/issues/327).
After
> >>> 15
> > days, the current tally stands at 26 out of 32 committers have
agreed
> to
> > switch license.
> >
> > Apache Toree has a JIRA (
> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TOREE-262)
> > where we keep all the relevant links and update with the latest
> > information. As that process is underway, we will move forward with
> >>> plans
> > to release a 0.1.0 version of Apache Toree based on the precedence
set
> >>> by
> > Apache Mynewt (
> >>>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201602.mbox/%3C5F118AA0-4ADA-403B-A6EB-4A85F0B30651%40me.com%3E
> > ).
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gino
> >>>
> >
> > -
> > To