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

Switch to Threaded View
Chukwa, mail # dev - [VOTE] Chukwa 0.5.0 release candidate 0


Copy link to this message
-
Re: [VOTE] Chukwa 0.5.0 release candidate 0
Eric Yang 2012-01-03, 22:54
I will make change to the NOTICE file to reflect Apache Chukwa, and
remove the license files
from the lib directory for RC1.

Full list of the license compliance can be found at:

http://people.apache.org/~eyang/chukwa-0.5.0-docs/dependencies.html

The LICENSE.txt only contains licenses of direct dependencies.  Should
we list licenses of all
dependencies recursively?

regards,
Eric

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry to come late to this thread. I only looked at the -src archive.
> It might be easier to pass a VOTE against the source distribution,
> then repackage a binary later. I couldn't spend much time with it, but
> a few suggestions:
>
> * Checksum and signature match. I started running the unit tests, but
> it looks like that's going to take awhile.
>
> The NOTICE starts with:
>
> Chukwa, a subproject of Apache Hadoop
> Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> It should read:
>
> Apache Chukwa
> Copyright 2011 The Apache Software Foundation
>
> The top-level LICENSE seems to contain multiple copies of some
> licenses. Further, the lib directory contains LICENSE files. Isn't it
> sufficient for those to be in the top-level LICENSE?
>
> It might be easier to first release the source tarball, then start
> work on the binary distribution. I agree with Ari; even if it's a
> layout common to projects in this domain, convincing the IPMC that
> it's acceptable may be effort misspent for the first release. The >90
> jars only in the binary distribution don't require changes to the
> LICENSE and NOTICE files? That doesn't seem right. -C
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Vote for PPMC has passed.
>>
>> 3 +1 PMC votes, and 2 +1 contributor votes
>>
>> Thank you to everyone who voted.  We will proceed to bring voting to
>> general@incubator for ipmc member to vote before we release.
>>
>> regards,
>> Eric
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Bill Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Ahmed Fathalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 Looks Good.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 5:28 PM, TARIQ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > +1
>>>> >
>>>> > Waiting for it..:)
>>>> >
>>>> > Regards,
>>>> >     Mohammad Tariq
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Eric Yang-3 [via Apache Chukwa]
>>>> > <ml-node+[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> > > +1
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Ps. This is a reminder for pmc to vote.
>>>> > > Thanks
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Sent from my iPhone
>>>> > >
>>>> > > On Dec 27, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Ariel Rabkin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> > >
>>>> > >> Gah. That layout offends me. But I will change my vote to a +1 since
>>>> > >> it's apparently the standard.
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> --Ari
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Eric Yang <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> > >>> The binary package is matching layout for standardized Hadoop stack
>>>> > >>> software.
>>>> > >>> This change have been implemented in Hadoop and related projects.
>>>> > >>> The layout is closely using layout of Linux Standard Base to improve
>>>> > >>> compatibilities between projects.
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> For reference of the proposed change, see:
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CHUKWA-605
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-6255
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-4337
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HCATALOG-63
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HIVE-2313
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PIG-1857
>>>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-999
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> regards,
>>>> > >>> Eric
>>>> > >>>
>>>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Ariel Rabkin <[hidden email]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > >>>> -1
>>>> > >>>>
>>>> > >>>> The binary package should have the readme, notice, etc at top level,
>>>> > >>>> not tucked in share/doc/chukwa