incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Pulsar 1.20.0-incubating Release Candidate 0
Date Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:22:16 GMT
Thanks for checking, I've added replies inline:

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 4:09 PM John D. Ament <johndament@apache.org> wrote:

> - you may want review your rat excludes and figure out if you are excluding
> too much (several paths couldn't be found in the source release OR do in
> fact have ASF headers, possibly incorrectly).  You may specifically want to
> double check your protobufs.
>

What do you mean exactly for protobuf checks? I think there is one protobuf
file which is being excluded, even though the file is not actually
distributed but rather generated during build process.

I think our main misunderstanding is on whether the generated files (target
directory, log files, generated Makefiles, etc) should not be included in
RAT excludes. If the expectation is to run RAT only on a "clean" copy of
the source distribution, then we'll very happily remove all the exclusions.


> - Ideally your .md files and other files owned by the project would in fact
> have the ASF headers on them.
>

Sure, we didn't add the headers initially because I was thinking that was
not possible to have comments in the the Markdown format (actually, just
verified that <!-- comment --> syntax works) and the fact that they aren't
included in the src distribution, but rather just published on the website.
I've created an issue for this:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-pulsar/issues/818


> - For the binary dist, the license file has an irrelevant header.  Is it
> from the original source?
>

There are few source files which we have included in our source repository.
For these files we have added a section in the LICENSE files to clarify. My
understanding was that this is required in the source distribution LICENSE
file. I wasn't 100% sure about the bin distribution LICENSE file so I have
left it there as well.
If these LICENSE headers are not needed there, we'll remove them.



> Something else to consider.  One of the things we like to see here at
> Apache is intermingling of projects.  I see you're using a number of
> projects from other locations that actually have equivalents here at Apache
> (Jetty, Jersey to name a couple), while licensing is OK do you see any
> potential roadmap for swapping them out?
>

These are very good points. We haven't really thought about that but we
will start a discussion on the dev list to make an assessment of the
changes and reach a consensus within the community.


Thank you,
Matteo


-- 
Matteo Merli
<mmerli@apache.org>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message