Due to various issues we are canceling the vote for release. Aaron
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Justin thank you for taking the time to evaluate the release. > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Tim Williams <william...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Thanks for taking the time to review Justin, we appreciate it. >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / >> explained, other issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may >> be that "For small amounts of source that is directly consumed by the ASF >> product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2] >> >> I think we just missed it, based on the example, I don't think we can >> use that escape-clause/rationale for its inclusion. We should take it >> back to the dev list at this point. >> > > I agree. I will cancel the vote and we will retry soon. > > Aaron > > >> >> > For the source release I checked: >> > - filename contains incubating >> > - signatures and hashes good >> > - DISCLAIMER exists >> > - LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2] >> > - NOTICE good >> > - Some unexpected binaries in source (see below) >> > - All source file have headers >> > - Can compile form source? >> > >> > LiCENSE is missing: >> > - MIT licensed normalize.css (see >> ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css >> + >> ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less) >> > - MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js) >> > >> > There is an issue with >> ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as this is MPL >> licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. >> In this case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being >> included in source not binary form. I’m not sure how this should be handled >> given there is no compiled JS form. >> > >> > >> > There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this >> be produced via the build process? >> > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar >> > ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar >> >> Yeah, these were just to drive some tests but I reckon we should craft >> another way that ships in source form. >> >> > Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the >> ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src files. Is there >> any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they >> are used to generate the binary NOTICE file? >> > >> >> They're sources needed to produce a [valid] binary package so it >> seemed reasonable to me include them. >> >> > For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is >> identical to the source release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor >> issue in that there is no need to repeat "This product includes software >> developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4]. >> > >> > Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be >> helpful as it seems a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is >> expected. (As far as I can see it seems to be doing a rat check and nothing >> else?) >> >> Yeah, we should add something to the README that hints at the >> quickstart or profiles: mvn install -Dhadoop2 >> >> Thanks again for taking your time... >> >> Thanks, >> --tim >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> >
