incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ant elder <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Kafka 0.7.0-incubating
Date Sat, 26 Nov 2011 08:52:09 GMT
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 1:07 AM, sebb <> wrote:
> On 25 November 2011 20:11, ant elder <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 2011, at 1:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Alan D. Cabrera <>
>>>>> 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) suggested we could run a quicker
>>>>>> 24 hour vote.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I've found some problems in the NOTICE file in that
>>>>>> uses/ship NUnit but it's not in the NOTICE file.
>>>>>> Quoting sebb and Kafka's champion (Chris C) discussed this in the
last vote
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> 4) Your NOTICE file includes lot's of "This product includes
>>>>>> developed by" Your notice file should only include notices
that you
>>>>>> are *required* to have. Don't include acknowledgements in your notice
>>>>>> just for completeness.
>>>>>>>>> Just to be clear: why not?
>>>>>> *>>> The NOTICE file should be as short as possible, but
no shorter.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Having said that, we also don't have any jar like "NUnit" in the
>>>>>> artifacts.
>>>>>  B     ./bin/../clients/csharp/lib/nunit/2.5.9/nunit.framework.dll
>>>>> Reading the license
>>>>> it seems to me that an acknowledgment  in the product documentation
is required.  Am I misreading their license?  (wouldn't be the first time)
>>>> I don't remember that license coming up before so the easiest way to
>>>> find out is to bring it up at legal-discuss@. A similar question was
>>>> raised in and the
>>>> conclusion there was it didn't have to be in the NOTICE. This is not
>>>> exactly the same but it is similar so maybe it would be ok for this
>>>> release could go ahead assuming its ok and raise a legal JIRA to
>>>> confirm that for the future?
>>> The tgz files are the product that's being distributed.  It's clear that the
NUnit license requires an acknowledgement somewhere in the product.
>> Earlier you said nunit was missing from the NOTICE so thats what I was
>> replying about, but I think what you meant was that it was missing
>> from the LICENSE too right? This does appear to ship the nunit dll and
>> not mention that in the LICENSE file and that does seem like something
>> that needs to be fixed.
> In which case, any unnecessary entries in the NOTICE file should be
> removed at the same time please.

Right, and this is going to require yet another respin and its already
RC7 it might be worth posting back here with the SVN URLs to the
LICENSE/NOTICE files after the updates are done but before the new RC
has been made so we can help confirm it all looks ok. I also think you
could CC the new vote thread to general@ and run the dev and incubator
vote in parallel to save a bit of time.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message