incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Williams <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Blur version 0.2.4-incubating RC1
Date Sat, 18 Jul 2015 02:57:21 GMT
Thanks for taking the time to review Justin, we appreciate it.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Justin Mclean <> wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) until the MPL issue can be resolved / explained, other
issues can be fixed next release. For the MPL issue it may be that "For small amounts of source
that is directly consumed by the ASF product at runtime in source form” may apply. [2]

I think we just missed it, based on the example, I don't think we can
use that escape-clause/rationale for its inclusion.  We should take it
back to the dev list at this point.

> For the source release I checked:
> - filename contains incubating
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has minor issues + MPL issue [2]
> - NOTICE good
> - Some unexpected binaries in source (see below)
> - All source file have headers
> - Can compile form source?
> LiCENSE is missing:
>  - MIT licensed normalize.css (see ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/public/css/blurconsole.css
+ ./apache-blur-0.2.4-incubating-src/blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/bootstrap/less/normalize.less)
> - MIT/BSD licensed polyfill (see ./docs/resources/js/respond.min.js)
> There is an issue with ./blur-console/src/main/webapp/libs/tagmanager/tagmanager.js as
this is MPL licensed [2] which is weak copy left and considered a category B license. In this
case it looks like it isn’t been handled correctly as it being included in source not binary
form. I’m not sure how this should be handled given there is no compiled JS form.
> There are a couple of test files that contain compiled code, can this be produced via
the build process?
> ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test1/test1.jar
> ./blur-core/src/test/resources/org/apache/blur/command/test2/test2.jar

Yeah, these were just to drive some tests but I reckon we should craft
another way that ships in source form.

> Something a little odd that caught my eye is all of the ./distribution/src/main/resources-hadoop1/notices/*.jar.src
files. Is there any reason for these files to be in the source release? It look that they
are used to generate the binary NOTICE file?

They're sources needed to produce a [valid] binary package so it
seemed reasonable to me include them.

> For the binary release you may want to check the LICENSE as it is identical to the source
release [3]. For the binary NOTICE file a minor issue in that there is no need to repeat "This
product includes software developed by The Apache Software Foundation “ [4].
> Re compiling from source some instructions in the README would be helpful as it seems
a mvn install in the top directory may not do what is expected. (As far as I can see it seems
to be doing a rat check and nothing else?)

Yeah, we should add something to the README that hints at the
quickstart or profiles: mvn install -Dhadoop2

Thanks again for taking your time...


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

View raw message