madlib-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Iyer <rahulri...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] MADlib v1.10-rc1
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:44:24 GMT
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