madlib-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank McQuillan <fmcquil...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.10-rc1
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:42:18 GMT
OK, so we need to go back and do the comparison from the original code
grant in the fall of 2015 to the  current 1.10 release candidate.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:

> Frank, I'm not sure I understand the question. The criteria needs to hold
> for anything that came in via the initial code ingest compared to how the
> master of your project looks now.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquillan@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
> > Roman,
> >
> > Does this apply retro-actively back to initial grant of the code to
> ASF?  Or
> > just from the last release 1.9.1?
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Here's the ultimate resolution on the IP issue:
> >>    * we don't do anything with existing (BSD) files even if we edit them
> >>    * every new file we create gets an ASF license header
> >>
> >> More details:
> >>
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-293?
> focusedCommentId=15881595&page=com.atlassian.jira.
> plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-15881595
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:54 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquillan@pivotal.io
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > Thanks Roman for working on this.
> >> >
> >> > If you feel a final answer will be ready next week, then yes by all
> >> > means l
> >> > would suggest to the community that we wait and re-spin an RC2 with
> the
> >> > license headers issue resolved.  Seems less overhead and effort than a
> >> > quick follow on release right after 1.10.  Also, there some momentum
> >> > going
> >> > with the legal discussion, so let's take advantage of that.
> >> >
> >> > Satoshi (release manager), are you OK pausing the RC2 until we hear
> back
> >> > from Roman next week?
> >> >
> >> > Thank you,
> >> > Frank
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Frank McQuillan
> >> >> <fmcquillan@pivotal.io>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Agree with Rahul re putting up an RC2 with the suggested changes
> from
> >> >> Roman,
> >> >> > including incorporating Ed's comments on copyright year and top
> level
> >> >> folder
> >> >> > naming.  These are really items but let's respond to the RC1
> >> >> > reviewers
> >> >> the
> >> >> > best way we can.
> >> >>
> >> >> +1 to a respin.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Regarding the ASF legal issue being discussed, MADLib community
is
> >> >> > more
> >> >> than
> >> >> > happy to respond to any guidance from the fine folks at the ASF
> >> >> > around
> >> >> > headers with appropriate licensing verbage.  We just need to know
> >> >> > what
> >> >> that
> >> >> > guidance is.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, if you're ok respinning next week I hope to get you a final
> >> >> answer by then.
> >> >> Might as well kill two birds with the same RC. Or we can quickly do
a
> >> >> follow up
> >> >> release once the licensing headers dust settles. Up to you guys.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> Roman.
> >> >>
> >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message