Hi,
The release for Apache Fury(incubating) v0.5.0-rc3 is canceled.
We didn't include the benchmark code in the source release, but the
LICENSE file did contain the reference to benchmark code.
This has been fixed in [1]
1. https://github.com/apache/incubator-fury/pull/1562
We will propose a
Hi tison,
My previous reply is a little confusing. What the "we don't release furyjs
in 0.5.0" means
is that we don't upload release bundles to npm in this release.
Best,
Chaokun Yang
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 5:36 PM tison wrote:
> Let me first summarize the result of the feedback on LICENSE
Let me first summarize the result of the feedback on LICENSE issues:
> - there are several references to a benchmark directory, but it is not
included in the release
This is correct. We made [10] to address it. And We're preparing a new
release candidate.
[10]
ead with a replaced title:
[CANCEL][VOTE] Release Apache Fury(incubating) v0.5.0-rc3
This release has been canceled. Due to ...
Best,
tison.
tison 于2024年4月25日周四 17:10写道：
> Hi Shawn,
>
> Thanks for sharing the finding. I can see the dependency from OpenSumi to
> Fury as in [1] now.
>
> [
Hi tison,
Thanks for the suggestion, we don't release furyjs in 0.5.0.
We can cooperate with OpenSumi after we make the first formal release of
furyjs
under ASF later.
Best,
Chaokun
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 5:11 PM tison wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
>
> Thanks for sharing the finding. I can see the
Hi Shawn,
Thanks for sharing the finding. I can see the dependency from OpenSumi to
Fury as in [1] now.
[1] https://github.com/search?q=repo:opensumi/core%20fury=code
After we make the first formal release, we can cooperate with OpenSumi to
upgrade to an incubating release and thus update the
Hi Justin,
Thanks for sharing this tool. I checked the code in Fury with this tool.
Here is the result:
1) [5][6] are osscan results.
2) Those files has duplication with package/lib/worker-host.js in
opensumi[7]
Opensumi relies on furyjs, so it packaged the code in apache fury into its
release
Hi Justin,
Thank you, and that's not in a hurry. I'd just like to make the status
clear and ensure we can make progress instead of subjective arguing.
Now I know you use ScanOSS and I'd suggest other members in Fury try to
check the project with this tool. I'll try it out if I find some time,
HI,
I’m happy to share it, but as I said, I'm travelling right now and don't have
access. I used ScanOSS workbench, but there are other checkers out there. And
yes, tools like this can sometimes give false positives, and it can sometimes
be unclear where things were originally copied or, in
> Of course we'd like to add the license info
As you can see, for files we're clear that is derived, we keep their
license headers, and add a link to the origin.
[1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-fury/blob/dd9f9128d24b418f6a420880c7780ce83d6448a2/licenserc.toml#L28-L54
So what I'm
On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:36 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m currently travelling and may be slow in responding to emails.
>
> > The MemoryBufferWritableChannel[5] and MockWritableChannel[6] was
> written
> > by me before we open-sourced Fury and
> > I submitted it to Ray in PR[8] ,which
> That should be fine, but having an ASF header on the files may be a
little misleading? What do you think?
Could you elaborate a bit on "misleading"? Shawn owned the code and he
contributed the code under Apache License 2.0, and also he has filed an
iCLA. So it follows the headers write:
> It certainly looks like some code was copied; one file, for instance, is
about 70% the same. This is not an issue as it is under a compatible MIT
license, but that needs to be mentioned in the LICENSE file.
Could you please tell the file name and the file on OpenSumi that is
overlapped? Of
Hi,
I’m currently travelling and may be slow in responding to emails.
> The MemoryBufferWritableChannel[5] and MockWritableChannel[6] was written
> by me before we open-sourced Fury and
> I submitted it to Ray in PR[8] ,which was planned to optimize zero-copy
> serialization in Ray. I think
Since it's valid that the LICENSE content to benchmark is redundant, I
suggest we cancel this RC and start a new RC.
In order to resolve the other potential compliance issues before the
next RC is out, I'd appreciate if Justin can confirm that the reply above
is clear, that is:
* 5-6 is authored
Hi Sebb,
The published install page[1] should look good now, could you check it
again?
1. https://fury.apache.org/docs/start/install
Best Regards,
Chaoun Yang
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:44 PM sebb wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 08:29, Shawn Yang wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sebb,
> >
> > I
On Wed, 24 Apr 2024 at 08:29, Shawn Yang wrote:
>
> Hi Sebb,
>
> I highlight that the current release is not an asf release in the install
> page in PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-fury-site/pull/113.
>
> Could you take a look at it again?
I have just looked at the PR you just raised, and
Hi Sebb,
I highlight that the current release is not an asf release in the install
page in PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-fury-site/pull/113.
Could you take a look at it again?
Thanks for taking time to review Fury's release.
Best regards,
Chaokun Yang
On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:20 PM
There is now a link to a potential download page, which is great.
However, the install page does not make it obvious that the 0.4.1
release is not an ASF release.
That information should be shown prominently at the start of the page,
not buried in a note near the end.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at
Hi Justin,
Thanks for helping review this release.
The MemoryBufferWritableChannel[5] and MockWritableChannel[6] was written
by me before we open-sourced Fury and
I submitted it to Ray in PR[8] ,which was planned to optimize zero-copy
serialization in Ray. I think it's OK to include it
here
Hi Justin,
Thanks for verifying potential compliance issue.
For 1-6 that you specify certain possible origins, do you have a report of
the overlap files? I try to search the content of datetime.ts in OpenSumi
but fail to find a result:
HI,
Sorry, it’s -1 (binding) from me as it looks like there is additional
third-party code without correct headers or mentioned in LICENSE.
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes are fine
- LICENSE has some issues (see below)
- NOTICE is fine
- It looks like some 3rd party code
I updated it in the PR
https://github.com/apache/incubator-fury-site/pull/112. Sorry for my last
reply, I forgot to put the PR link.
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 10:22 PM sebb wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 14:05, Shawn Yang wrote:
> >
> > Hi Sebb,
> >
> > I updated the content in the install doc
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 14:05, Shawn Yang wrote:
>
> Hi Sebb,
>
> I updated the content in the install doc and added notes that this is not
> an ASF release.
>
> And added a download page for download and verify source release only.
> Currently this page is basically empty, but will be updated
Hi Sebb,
I updated the content in the install doc and added notes that this is not
an ASF release.
And added a download page for download and verify source release only.
Currently this page is basically empty, but will be updated once this vote
is done, and updated
to closer.lua according to
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 13:08, tison wrote:
>
> > They could fix the page now, while waiting for the release vote to
> complete.
>
> Make sense. At least remove the page/content now to indicate "no Apache
> release" now. Then it won't be some "forth and back" updates. It's a timing
> issue.
>
> >
> They could fix the page now, while waiting for the release vote to
complete.
Make sense. At least remove the page/content now to indicate "no Apache
release" now. Then it won't be some "forth and back" updates. It's a timing
issue.
> Note that the page needs more than just an update to version
+1 binding
Please remember to update the installation page, replace the current
content with the first Apache release, and remove all the prior releases
refs, once this release is concluded.
Otherwise, if you'd like to keep the refs to prior releases, make it clear
that they are not Apache
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 12:46, tison wrote:
>
> > I would be very disappointed if the podling published the code
> > *knowing* that the download page is missing or incorrect.
>
> IIUC Fury will update the content and delete all the references to prior
> releases.
Note that the page needs more
> I would be very disappointed if the podling published the code
> *knowing* that the download page is missing or incorrect.
IIUC Fury will update the content and delete all the references to prior
releases.
Or instead, Fury can keep these references and state clearly it's prior
releases.
My
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 09:42, tison wrote:
>
> > There is no indication that 0.4.1 is not an ASF release.
>
> You may found that the group id is not org.apache.fury also.
Whilst this is true, it is still not obvious that this is not an ASF
release; it is easy to overlook this minor detail.
> There is no indication that 0.4.1 is not an ASF release.
You may found that the group id is not org.apache.fury also.
This is an intermediate state that we would update the content as:
org.apache.fury
fury-core
0.5.0
And then the content is correct. If we make any workaround or patch
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 at 10:11, PJ Fanning wrote:
>
> Hi Sebb,
> This email thread is a vote for an RC. If this vote passes, v0.5.0
> will be the first release of Fury since it became a podling.
> We will add a download page but at the moment, there is nothing to
> link to there (except perhaps a
Hi Sebb,
Thanks for reviewing the Fury release.
You are right that the snapshot packages should not be included in the
project website according to the apache release policy[1].
I created a PR[2] to fix this. It won't block this vote.
For download pages, as PJ said, we haven't released Fury
Hi Suyan,
Thanks for reviewing Fury release and the suggestions. We will update our
build document to give a more detailed environment requirements later.
On Monday, April 22, 2024, Suyan wrote:
> +1 non-binding
> Apache ID: suyanhanx
>
> I checked:
>
> [x] Download links are valid.
> [x]
Hi Sebb,
This email thread is a vote for an RC. If this vote passes, v0.5.0
will be the first release of Fury since it became a podling.
We will add a download page but at the moment, there is nothing to
link to there (except perhaps a KEYS file).
The Install page does need to be updated to not
On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 at 16:26, Shawn Yang wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a call for the vote to release Apache Fury(Incubating) v0.5.0-rc3.
>
> The Apache Fury community has voted and approved the release of Apache
> Fury(incubating) v0.5.0-rc3. We now kindly request the IPMC members
>
+1 non-binding
Apache ID: suyanhanx
I checked:
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and signaturesgpg: Signature made Wed Apr 17 23:49:45 2024 CST
gpg:using RSA key 1E2CDAE4C08AD7D694D1CB139D7BE8E45E580BA4
gpg: checking the trustdb
gpg: marginals needed: 3 completes
+1 binding
[x] Download links are valid.
[x] Checksums and signatures.
gpg: Signature made Wed 17 Apr 2024 11:49:45 PM CST
gpg:using RSA key 1E2CDAE4C08AD7D694D1CB139D7BE8E45E580BA4
gpg: checking the trustdb
gpg: marginals needed: 3 completes needed: 1 trust model: pgp
gpg:
+1.
[x] Download Fury is valid.
[x] Checksums and PGP signatures are valid.
[x] Source code distributions have correct names matching the current
release.
[x] LICENSE and NOTICE files are correct.
[x] All files have license headers if necessary.
[x] No compiled archives bundled in source archive.
+1 binding carried over from PPMC vote
On Sat 20 Apr 2024, 17:26 Shawn Yang, wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a call for the vote to release Apache Fury(Incubating) v0.5.0-rc3.
>
> The Apache Fury community has voted and approved the release of Apache
> Fury(incubating) v0.5.0-rc3. We now
Hello everyone,
This is a call for the vote to release Apache Fury(Incubating) v0.5.0-rc3.
The Apache Fury community has voted and approved the release of Apache
Fury(incubating) v0.5.0-rc3. We now kindly request the IPMC members
review and vote for this release.
Apache Fury(incubating) - A
42 matches
Mail list logo
