incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sebb <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release HDT version 0.0.1.incubating (RC2)
Date Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:19:47 GMT
On 29 November 2013 10:21, Rahul Sharma <> wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to call for a vote for Apache Hadoop Development Tools
> (incubating), version 0.0.1.incubating. The vote has happened of the dev
> mailing list and the community has approved the third release
> candidate(RC2) for Apache Hadoop Development Tools (incubating), version
> 0.0.1.incubating.The release has Zookeper and HDFS features from the
> *hadoop-eclipse-merge* codebase.The issues raised for RC0 and RC1 have been
> addressed in this release.
> 1 IPMC votes have already been cast:
>   Roman Shaposhnik (mentor)
> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Hadoop Development Tools
> 0.0.1.incubating.
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache HDT 0.0.1.incubating
> [ ]  0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the release
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> PPMC Vote thread :
> Vote Result :
> Source and binary files:
> The tag to be voted upon:

NOTICE says:

This product includes Eclipse Icons from - Eclipse
Public License v 1.0

However the LICENSE file does not include the EPL.

I think this is a blocker; any 3rd party inclusions must be
accompanied by their license, either in the LICENSE file or as a
separate file referenced from the LICENSE file. [The end user must be
able to find the licenses easily, not go searching through directory

Without knowing the text of the EPL, it's not possible to determine
whether there also needs to be a mention in the NOTICE file (the
LICENSE may be sufficient) It's vital that the NOTICE file only has
required elements in it; unnecessary content must be removed [1]

The binary archive contains some 3rd party libraries; these need to be
mentioned in the embedded LICENSE and perhaps the NOTICE file.

I noticed SLF4J - are there any others?

This is another blocker, IMO.

Note that the NOTICE & LICENSE files must relate to the distribution
to which they belong; generally this means that the ones in the source
archive match the ones at the top-level of SCM (i.e. git here); the
binary archive may require additional entries in LICENSE and possibly

Also the word "Devlopment" appears in at least one NOTICE file as part
of the product name. Is that really the correct product name?


> PGP keys used to sign the release:
> Some guideline to verify release can be found at :
> regards,
> Rahul

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

View raw message