We have received 4 IPMC +1 votes (plus an additional 3 PPMC +1 votes)
during the release voting on kafka-users and general.
Results:
IPMC Members/Mentors:
+1 [4] 0 [0] -1 [0]
PPMC Members:
+1 [3] 0 [0] -1 [0]
The vote is successful
Voting Record:
**Chris Douglas: +1 (g) Chris
Hi,
With 3 binding IPMC votes, this vote has passed. The following IPMC members
voted with a +1 on this release -
Chris Douglas
Chris Mattman
Arun Murthy
We will work on releasing Kafka 0.7. Thank you everyone who worked in this
release !
Thanks,
Neha
On Thursday, December 22, 2011, Arun C
Normally the vote takes place on both lists simultaneously and all the votes
are aggregated. Can you aggregate all the votes? Thanks!
Regards,
Alan
On Dec 24, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Hi,
With 4 +1 votes, this vote has passed. In addition to this, the vote has
passed
+1 (binding)
Verified sigs, checked NOTICE and ran tests.
Arun
On Dec 20, 2011, at 5:42 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share RC 9 for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating. In the interest of saving time, and with the
expectation that the one-liner change will
On 20 December 2011 18:51, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC 8 for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
release. This is the
Sebb,
This makes sense. We will fix the NOTICE file and restart the VOTE on
general@ today.
Thanks for the feedback!
-Neha
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 December 2011 18:51, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Kafka community is excited
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share RC 9 for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating. In the interest of saving time, and with the
expectation that the one-liner change will pass the vote on
kafka-users@, we will run a vote in parallel here.
Vote thread
+1 from me (binding).
KEYS check out:
[chipotle:~/tmp/kafka-0.7.0] mattmann% curl -O
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/kafka/KEYS
% Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current
Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed
Could someone help take a look at this? This should be pretty simple. We
really want to proceed with the voting of the first release of Kafka.
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.comwrote:
Folks,
Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE
Folks,
Thanks for giving feedback on the LICENSE and NOTICE file issues. We've
worked on the feedback and would appreciate if you could take a look and
see if there are no red flags.
Please find the LICENSE, NOTICE files and release artifacts for the next RC
here -
At Forrest we have stacks of supporting products to manage.
Each time that we decide to bundle a new one, we try to deal
with its license and potential notices at the time.
Read their LICENSE. If it has a required notice then comply
by adding it to our NOTICE file. If it does not, then there
is
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE. If
you don't ship it, let's say that you call it a System Requirement
or Optional Plugin, then you don't need it.
ALSO, more importantly, it looks like Voldemort depends
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I'll open a discussion for this on the
whirr list/jira.
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:31 AM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
Normally, when you ship the dependency together with your own
product/project, then (AFAIK) that bigger work needs the NOTICE.
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such
I've opened a couple LEGAL jiras on this stuff to nail it down:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-118
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-119
Thanks all!
Patrick
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Kevan Miller
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
is this (B) a third-party work or not? Are the parties in this
case singular the ASF or the TLPs? Specifically, do I need to
include the NOTICE file from B in the NOTICE
Thanks Kevan.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 6, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Patrick Hunt wrote:
Here's another one, say Apache TLP A includes works from Apache TLP B,
is this (B) a third-party work or not? Are the parties in this
case singular the
There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
Copyright Notice Policy [2]
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As someone trying to generate these documents, I'm actually finding
these
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a sample NOTICE file linked [1] from ASF Source Header and
Copyright Notice Policy [2]
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-examplenotice
[2] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice
As
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Niclas Hedhman nic...@hedhman.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:25 AM, Patrick Hunt ph...@apache.org wrote:
Personally I don't believe whirr is in error. Voldemort is under
Apache 2.0 license, and as such falls under this:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
The rat community has started working on whisker[1] (and some other
tools) but we
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
includes quite a
On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 December 2011 09:33, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Jakob Homan jgho...@gmail.com wrote:
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
On Dec 2, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
So I hope it's clear why it's frustrating to
have this rule suddenly pop up when it's apparently not enforced in
the majority of cases (and then to be asked to go and open JIRAs for
each of these projects on top of it).
This requirement is
-Original Message-
From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: kafka-us...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating)
Hi
On 1 December 2011 02:29, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
There are spurious === lines at
As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are tracking a bug
to fix all non-blocker changes to the NOTICE
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
As it stands, either the NOTICE file is wrong, or the LICENSE file is
wrong, because the NOTICE file should not mention 3rd party products
that are not in the LICENSE file.
Thanks for the feedback! As I have already mentioned, we are
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
paranamer-2.2.jar -- http://paranamer.codehaus.org/info/license.html
The link you reference puts
Does Apache has tools (like rat) to extract all the needed license? Digging
out the license manually is both labour intensive and error prone.
Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 1, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
As it
On 1 December 2011 21:58, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
I took a quick look at some of these artifacts. I definitely see licenses
missing from the LICENSE file. For example:
paranamer-2.2.jar --
Kevan-
You appear to have generated your list of jars from looking at
kafka-0.7.0-incubating.tar.gz, the binary distribution that has been
built as a customary courtesy as part of the release attempt. This
includes quite a few jars that are not included in the source tree
since binary
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:00 PM, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know
Yupyup. I thought I'd add a little background rant here, that I wrote
for the jena podling a bit ago. Purely optional reading but maybe
illuminating for some.
cheerio,
- Leo
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Benson Margulies
On 30 November 2011 14:11, Leo Simons m...@leosimons.com wrote:
Yupyup. I thought I'd add a little background rant here, that I wrote
for the jena podling a bit ago. Purely optional reading but maybe
illuminating for some.
cheerio,
- Leo
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Leo Simons
Hi,
The Kafka community is hoping to get some feedback on the updated NOTICE
and LICENSE files for Kafka, before we post a new vote for it.
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/NOTICE
http://people.apache.org/~nehanarkhede/LICENSE
The previous vote thread or release artifacts are here -
Also, we haven't ignored the fact that the NOTICE file must ideally be as
short as possible.
To track this issue, we've filed a bug -
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/KAFKA-219 and will be fixing it for
the next release.
Thanks,
Neha
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Neha Narkhede
.
- Dennis
-Original Message-
From: Neha Narkhede [mailto:neha.narkh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 18:30
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: kafka-us...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Feedback on updated NOTICE and LICENSE files (was: [VOTE] Release
Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
On 28 November 2011 21:17, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files.
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
to
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
Agreed.
For some background: Keeping the NOTICE file as lean as possible
(given
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Depends but potentially in some cases, yes.
Robert
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
To users no, to redistributors yes.
Section 4 of ALv2 makes the attribution notices contained within the
NOTICE file mandatory for any downstream
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but
One shortcut that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software
has
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The context for this is the discussion here -
http://markmail.org/message/rsxjgrrufc6khlqy?q=overhead+list:org.apache.incubator.general
This was a long discussion with no clear answers.
We would like to know
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a point to 2) to running serial votes. You need only 3
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011 4:00 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
We would like to know if it is OK to either -
1. shorten the release VOTE for change to one non-code file
2. run 72 hour vote in parallel on the dev list as well as on general@
I've never seen a
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Thanks,
Neha
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
On 11/29/2011 7:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/2011
On 11/29/2011 7:50 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
So, you are saying option 2 is a reasonable choice, given that only the
NOTICE/LICENSE files have changed one line here and there ?
Yes, if you let the 72 hour vote run through with a clear message that
it will be rerolled with a short vote.
If
Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutting RCs is a significant
time investment, we'd appreciate if you could list all the concerns you
have once.
2. Sebb,
Thanks Alan for summarizing the issues!
We can perform all the other suggestions in a subsequent release.
Sebb also had a suggestion about release candidate tags. The kafka
community had discussed this and felt that creating a release tag is more
convenient to do when a vote passes. Until then,
On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, I still have some questions.
1. Alan, this nunit license acknowledgement is missing from the NOTICE file
since RC1 and RC1 had the nunit files. Since cutting RCs is a significant
time investment, we'd appreciate if
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D.
On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Alan,
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
was my understanding that votes
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Alan,
It's unfortunate that the vote
On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder antel...@apache.org wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com
wrote:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Alan,
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
Because the only change was in the
On 23 November 2011 23:52, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator. Please
try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release. This is
the
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator. Please
try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release. This is
the first release of Kafka since we've joined the Apache incubator.
Based on the
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it was my
understanding that votes take 72 hours.
Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that Kafka uses/ship
NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file.
-1
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 23, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Neha
Alan,
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
previous RC, our champion (Chris C) suggested we could run a quicker lazy
24 hour vote.
Anyway, I've
On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:47 PM, Neha Narkhede wrote:
Alan,
It's unfortunate that the vote only took 24 hours on the Kafka list; it
was my understanding that votes take 72 hours.
Because the only change was in the NOTICE and DISCLAIMER files from
previous RC, our champion (Chris C)
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure the vote can be shortened. I could be wrong. If it can
then I totally agree with the inclination to get goin' with this release.
I'm sorry it's had so many first and starts.
As long as the only
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The sponsoring entity is normally the Incubator, sometimes another PMC.
According to podlings.xml the sponsor is the Incubator, so please fix the
site.
Woah, I hadn't seen that; fixed. Also fixed a reference to Apache
Flume
On 18 November 2011 08:10, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:58 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
The sponsoring entity is normally the Incubator, sometimes another PMC.
According to podlings.xml the sponsor is the Incubator, so please fix the
site.
Woah, I
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
other Apache projects that release a single distribution
On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:01 AM, sebb wrote:
On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want
On 18 November 2011 19:33, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 18, 2011, at 10:01 AM, sebb wrote:
On 18 November 2011 15:04, Alan D. Cabrera l...@toolazydogs.com wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
On 17
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
code and jars. For example,
http://mirror.metrocast.net/apache//zookeeper/zookeeper-3.3.3/ . So, is
source distribution strictly required?
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
code and jars. For example,
On Nov 17, 2011, at 2:10 PM, sebb wrote:
On 17 November 2011 16:30, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
code and jars. For example,
sebb wrote:
Jun Rao wrote:
Sebb,
Just to want to clarify on the source distribution. It seems there are
other Apache projects that release a single distribution with both source
code and jars. For example,
http://mirror.metrocast.net/apache//zookeeper/zookeeper-3.3.3/ . So, is
I
I took a look at the svn source and the binary artifact and have some
additional comments.
1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the
LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects the license/notice requirements of these
jar files.
2) Why are these jars being stored in your
Thanks Sebb and Kevan. This is helpful.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the
LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects the license/notice requirements of
these jar files.
2) Why are these
On 18 November 2011 02:17, Chris Douglas cdoug...@apache.org wrote:
Thanks Sebb and Kevan. This is helpful.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Kevan Miller kevan.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
1) Your svn contains a number of jar files. I don't believe that the
LICENSE/NOTICE file properly reflects
The distribution does include source code in it. Are you saying that we
should have a separate source distribution with no jars in it?
Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:37 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 November 2011 19:52, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On 15 November 2011 15:05, Jun Rao jun...@gmail.com wrote:
The distribution does include source code in it. Are you saying that we
should have a separate source distribution with no jars in it?
Yes, that is the normal way to do things.
The source archive should basically be a copy of the SVN
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release.
This is the first release of Kafka since we've joined the Apache incubator.
Vote thread
On 14 November 2011 19:52, Neha Narkhede neha.narkh...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Kafka community is excited to share that RC for release of
Kafka-0.7.0-incubating has been +1'd over at kafka-user@incubator.
Please try it out and vote for the Apache Kafka 0.7.0-incubating release.
This is the
91 matches
Mail list logo
