Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Drill >> mail # dev >> RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?

Copy link to this message
Re: RC3 Vote: Third time's the charm?
Resending on the proper thread.  Sorry for the extra noise:

-1 (binding)

Notes below on the artifacts.  

I'm also curious why this is being called 1.0 milestone 1 as opposed to something lower?  I know the community has been at it for a while (this is purely my opinion and isn't binding), so it isn't to say it isn't close to a 1.0, I guess I would just somewhat expect that 1.0 is what comes out when the project graduates to a TLP, which presumably happens after doing a couple of releases.  Also, a 1.0 implies, to me anyway, some level of backwards compatibility going forward.  Is this community ready to take that on for code that has been developed from scratch here and has never been released before?  I'm fine if the answer is yes, I'm just more curious as to the thought process, and please feel free to point me at other discussions that I may have missed instead of rehashing here.

Artifact notes:

In the binary, beyond what others have said:

The binary doesn't have LICENSE or NOTICE (the source does, but see below)

I didn't see any instructions on what to do after this, so I stopped looking.

Has someone verified that all the 3rd party libraries bundled are compatible?  http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved

Source Distro:

Doing "mvn test" or "mvn install", etc. yields:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal com.github.igor-petruk.protobuf:protobuf-maven-plugin:0.6.3:run (default) on project common: Cannot execute 'protoc': Cannot run program "protoc": error=2, No such file or directory -> [Help 1]

The NOTICE file is woefully lacking in attributions given the number of dependencies used.  Compare with Solr, for instance:https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/lucene/dev/trunk/solr/NOTICE.txt.  See http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice


Running Maven Rat (http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-plugin/index.html) yields:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.rat:apache-rat-plugin:0.10:check (default-cli) on project drill-root: Too many files with unapproved license: 97 See RAT report in: /Users/grantingersoll/projects/drill/votes/apache-drill-1.0.0-m1/target/rat.txt -> [Help 1]
Which means Drill doesn't have license headers, etc. setup correctly.

See the full RAT output at  http://paste.apache.org/bEnJ

You can easily run RAT yourself by doing: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/#Apache_Maven and then running: mvn apache-rat:check  I would suggest just adding it to the POM so it is always there.


Please see http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html

Is A Full Copy Of The License Required In Each Source File?
In short, only one copy of the license is needed per distribution. This full license file should be placed at the root of the distribution in a file named LICENSE. For software developed at the ASF, each source file need only contain the boilerplate notice.

Where Is The Right Place For Attribution Notices?
The new license allows for a NOTICE file that contains such attribution notices (including the Apache attribution notice). Read this.

Any attribution notices contained within existing source files should be moved into the file. The NOTICE file must included within the distributed next to the LICENSE file.

Ensure that the standard ASF attribution notice is contained in any new NOTICE file created.

What Content Is Appropriate For The NOTICE File?
Read this.

Only mandatory information required by the product's software licenses. Not suitable for normal documentation.

Is A NOTICE File Required For Pure ASF Code?
Yes! The NOTICE file must contain the standard ASF attribution, given below:

This product includes software developed at
The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/).
N.B. Unfortunately versions of this document prior to 2013-01-30 (r1440650) were incorrect, as they used the phrase: "developed by" instead of "developed at". The official wording was established in section 6C of the board minutes for May 24 2006

On Sep 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: