Agree.
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:23, at 08:23, Dan Halperin
wrote:
>More on DEPENDENCIES:
>
>The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from
>the
>RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See
>also
>the linked issues from the Apache pom
Yes. Good idea. Anyway the dependency should be optional (build in a dedicated
profile or not).
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:22, at 08:22, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a
>profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to m
More on DEPENDENCIES:
The latest version of Apache's maven-parent explicitly excludes it from the
RAT check. [0] I see other projects have the same file e,g,. [1]. See also
the linked issues from the Apache pom [2].
I think that file's presence may be WAI?
[0] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/
For the future, we should maybe only build the Kinesis Connector in a
profile. Then it would truly not be build. pushed to maven central, etc.
For a normal build.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 08:20 Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote:
> Thanks Justin.
>
> Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependenc
+1 (binding)
Regards
JB
On Oct 28, 2016, 10:58, at 10:58, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
>Hi everyone,
>Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
>version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
>[ ] +1, Approve the release
>[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide spec
Thanks Justin.
Anyway I will double check the Kinesis client dependency definition.
Thanks again
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:18, at 08:18, Justin Mclean
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
>
>> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope
>provided, I don'
Hi,
Changing my vote to +1 (binding).
> Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I
> don't think it's an issue.
In the legal JIRA and the discussion on the dev list there's no nothing about
if the dependancy is considered optional or not that I could find.
This
Ah yes that's it. So it's not a project specific thing IMHO.
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:15, at 08:15, Christopher wrote:
>I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's
>execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated
>when
>the 'apache-release
Hi Dan
Yeah good catch. Default configuration of the release plugin doesn't create
such file afair. So we probably have a configuration or other plugins defined
in the project.
Regards
JB
On Oct 29, 2016, 08:07, at 08:07, Dan Halperin
wrote:
>Hi Justin,
>
>Thanks for excellent detailed a
I believe the DEPENDENCIES file is produced by the Apache Parent POM's
execution of the maven-remote-resources-plugin, and it is generated when
the 'apache-release' profile is active during a release.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM Dan Halperin
wrote:
> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for excellent detai
Hi Justin,
Thanks for excellent detailed analysis, as usual!
1) Hmm! I do see a file called `DEPENDENCIES` in the source release [0],
but it is not checked in [1]. It must be introduced somehow by `mvn
release-plugin`, following our release process [2].
To clear up some possible confusion: We
Not sure I understand. If the dependency is optional and scope provided, I
don't think it's an issue.
If it's not the case (I gonna check) and the resulting jar embeds the
dependency it's an issue.
Kinesis IO will be used by a very small part of users imho (only the ones who
needs pipelines co
Hi,
> We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
Yep I read that discussion and it seems to me to be missing the main point. Yes
you can’t have Category X software in a release but you can’t have it as a
dependancy either unless it’s optional.
> The dependency is not embedded
Hi John
Rat is supposed to run with the release profile. We are going to check that and
why DEPENDENCIES file has not been checked.
Regarding Kinesis, the dependency should not be embedded in any Beam jar or
distribution. The user has to explicitly define the dependency to be able to
use the I
Hi Justin
We discussed about this dependency on the dev mailing list.
The dependency is not embedded in any Beam distribution or jar file. The users
have to explicitly define the dependency to be able to use the Kinesis IO.
So I don't see any issue in that case. Agree ?
Regards
JB
On Oct 2
Hi,
-1 binding due to LICENSE and NOTICE issues and including binary files in the
source release.
This was brought up last release and looks like it hasn't been corrected?
For [1]
- LICENSE and NOTICE are incorrect as they do not mention any of the bundled
software
- includes unexpected binary
Hi,
-1 binding due to incompatible license dependancy. Happy to change my vote if
this is shown to not be the case.
Everything checks out expect the dependancy of Amazon licensed software which
is category X [1] this (closed) JIRA covers it [2]
Note that it not enough just to not included the
Hi,
> The release artifacts can be found at :
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.
> 11.0-incubating-rc4/
It not clear to me what exactly is the release artefacts here, for instance why
does this directory include jars? Can you please clarify.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
mvn apache-rat:check fails on your release due to the DEPENDENCIES file not
having a header. If you don't need this file, please remove it. I would
also recommend leaving apache-rat running all the time to avoid newly
introduced issues.
In addition, I notice that your build output includes
+1 (binding), carrying over from dev vote
Sent from my iPhone,
Venkatesh
> On Oct 28, 2016, at 2:22 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote:
>
> (repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs )
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> So far I've successfully checked:
> * signatures and digests
> * source releases
Hi,
> I've seen others do a thing that adds a new email address to an existing PGP
> identity. Would that be included in what you are recommending?
Yes, looks like we need to add some instructions here. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://www.apache.org/dev/openpgp.html
--
Please vote to approve the release of the following candidate as Apache
SystemML version 0.11.0!
The PPMC vote thread:
https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org/msg01013.html
And the result:
https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org/msg01062.html
The tag
Justin Mclean said:
> You might want to consider signing the artefact with an apache email address
> rather than a gmail one.
I was just wondering about that because I just got my apache user name. (very
excited!)
I've seen others do a thing that adds a new email address to an existing PGP
ide
Hi,
+1 (binding). Sorry for being a little late in reviewing.
I checked:
- artefact name contains incubating
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE and NOTICE good
- All source files have ASF headers
- No unexpected binary files in source release
- Can compile from source
You
Hello,
The vote to release Rya (Incubating) version 3.2.10 RC3 has passed with 3
+1 votes.
+1 (binding):
Josh Elser
Seetharam Venkatesh
Sergio Fernández
I will promote the artifacts to the central repo and copy them to
dist/release
--Aaron
Added, happy editing!
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 3:53 PM Susan Cline wrote:
> Hi, John,
>
> My username for the wiki page is SusanCline.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Susan
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I will be filing the November podling report for Apache Edgent.
> >
> > May I please have permission to edit this wiki
Hi, John,
My username for the wiki page is SusanCline.
Thank you,
Susan
> Hi,
>
> I will be filing the November podling report for Apache Edgent.
>
> May I please have permission to edit this wiki page?
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/November2016 <
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/Novem
The Apache Fluo (incubating) team is happy to announce the release of Fluo
Recipes 1.0.0-incubating:
https://fluo.apache.org/release/fluo-recipes-1.0.0-incubating/
Fluo Recipes builds on the Fluo API to offer additional functionality
to developers. They are published separately from Fluo on their
+1 (binding)
> On Oct 21, 2016, at 7:03 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> +1 binding
>
> I checked:
> - name includes incubating
> - hashes and signatures good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE and NOTICE good (nice work there!)
> - No unexpected binary files
> - all source file have ASF hea
(repeating my vote on dev@beam https://s.apache.org/AYPs )
+1 (binding)
So far I've successfully checked:
* signatures and digests
* source releases file layouts
* matched git tags and commit ids
* incubator suffix and disclaimer
* NOTICE and LICENSE files
* license headers
* clean build (Java 1.
Hi everyone,
Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the Apache Beam
version 0.3.0-incubating, as follows:
[ ] +1, Approve the release
[ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific comments)
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* JIR
31 matches
Mail list logo
