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 19:43:36 GMT
Thanks Rahul.  I see your commit has addressed the remaining issues:
https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-madlib.git;a=commit;h=a3863b6c

We are declaring create_indicators.* as new files so they will have Apache
header.

For the record, I attached an Excel spreadsheet with some more notes so
that we remember how we went from the two lists Rahul posted above to the
above commit.

Frank

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Rahul Iyer <rahulriyer@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have attached two files:
>
> new_files_after_apache.txt: New files added since September 15, 2015
> (grant date) till date
> files_w_apache_header.txt: Files that contain the Apache header right now.
>
> Comparing the two lists, there are open questions regarding below files.
>
> Extra headers:
> - sort-module.py has Apache header but was created before grant (recently
> edited and header added). *I'll fix this*.
> - create_indicators.* have headers but were renamed from
> data_preparation.*. *What is the legal guidance with this*?
>
> No header:
> - class_diagram.mp looks like a text file with no header, even though it
> was added just after the grant. I'm not aware of the purpose of this file.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquillan@pivotal.io>
> wrote:
>
>> 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