incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache Pulsar 1.20.0-incubating Release Candidate 0
Date Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:01:27 GMT
Hi -

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Matteo Merli <> wrote:
> Thanks for checking, I've added replies inline:
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 4:09 PM John D. Ament <> 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:
>> - 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.

I don’t necessarily agree with John about this. Highly visible projects like Lucene switched
from Tomcat to Jetty with Solr 6.

As long as the license is category A changing dependencies should only be a high priority
if there is a technical advantage.


> Thank you,
> Matteo
> -- 
> Matteo Merli
> <>

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

View raw message