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

Switch to Threaded View
Drill, mail # dev - Call for Release Vote: Apache Drill Milestone 1 Release (a.k.a Alpha)


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Call for Release Vote: Apache Drill Milestone 1 Release (a.k.a Alpha)
Ted Dunning 2013-09-09, 14:34
OK.

So I see the following actions:

- NOTICE and LICENSE files

- promote HOWTO into an INSTALL file in the source artifact

- nuke the binary release for now pending lots of thought about licensing

- license headers everywhere

Grant's review didn't turn up any new warts beyond the ones that we already
know about which is good.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> -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.
>
> 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]
> [ERROR]
> 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
>
> <snip>
> 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