Feedback on first release candidate artifacts (0.6-incubating)

[Robert Metzger]

Hi,

I have created artifacts for our first release within Apache.
I don't want to call an official vote on these artifacts since I did not
really check them myself (I'm a bit in a hurry right now)

Artifacts:
http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/0.6-incubating-rc1/

Maven Staging Repository:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1000

Release Branch:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-flink.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release-0.6

Please give feedback if you found any issues.
I will check the files myself later today and once I'm satisfied, I'll
start the vote.

Best,
Robert

[Henry Saputra]

Took quick glance at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.

According to guidance [1] we just need simple thing in NOTICE file.
Most of  Apache products should not be duplicated in the NOTICE file.
Only those external source packaged in the source distribution that
requires us to copy their NOTICE file should be included.
Otherwise we need to keep NOTICE file short and clean.


[1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have created artifacts for our first release within Apache.
> I don't want to call an official vote on these artifacts since I did not
> really check them myself (I'm a bit in a hurry right now)
>
> Artifacts:
> http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/0.6-incubating-rc1/
>
> Maven Staging Repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1000
>
> Release Branch:
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-flink.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release-0.6
>
> Please give feedback if you found any issues.
> I will check the files myself later today and once I'm satisfied, I'll
> start the vote.
>
> Best,
> Robert

[Robert Metzger]

Thank you Henry. I'll look into it later today.

I have to create a second candidate for the following reasons:
- the version information has not been stored properly in the release since
my script deleted the ".git" repo prior to the build. The start log looks
like this: (the Rev and Date should not be <unknown>)
19:27:02,050 INFO  org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmanager.JobManager
     -  Starting JobManager (Version: 0.6-incubating-rc1, Rev:<unknown>,
Date:<unknown>)
- I forgot to commit the actual released version (a commit with the version
set to 0.6-incubating-rc1). Thats important to make the release
reproducible.
- The web interface's job history is not working (javascript load error)


What do you guys think about a changelog? RC1 does not have one.
I can look for a script to automatically generate a log from the git
history. JIRA also has support for this, but I think we are not super
careful about tracking the "fix version" / "affected version" fields.



On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Henry Saputra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Took quick glance at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
>
> According to guidance [1] we just need simple thing in NOTICE file.
> Most of  Apache products should not be duplicated in the NOTICE file.
> Only those external source packaged in the source distribution that
> requires us to copy their NOTICE file should be included.
> Otherwise we need to keep NOTICE file short and clean.
>
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
>
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have created artifacts for our first release within Apache.
> > I don't want to call an official vote on these artifacts since I did not
> > really check them myself (I'm a bit in a hurry right now)
> >
> > Artifacts:
> > http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/0.6-incubating-rc1/
> >
> > Maven Staging Repository:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1000
> >
> > Release Branch:
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-flink.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release-0.6
> >
> > Please give feedback if you found any issues.
> > I will check the files myself later today and once I'm satisfied, I'll
> > start the vote.
> >
> > Best,
> > Robert
>

[Henry Saputra]

For change log we could just use Jira report for this release. More
elaborate way we could use Git history but I think using Jira will allow us
to be more discipline to track issues

On Saturday, August 2, 2014, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you Henry. I'll look into it later today.
>
> I have to create a second candidate for the following reasons:
> - the version information has not been stored properly in the release since
> my script deleted the ".git" repo prior to the build. The start log looks
> like this: (the Rev and Date should not be <unknown>)
> 19:27:02,050 INFO  org.apache.flink.runtime.jobmanager.JobManager
>      -  Starting JobManager (Version: 0.6-incubating-rc1, Rev:<unknown>,
> Date:<unknown>)
> - I forgot to commit the actual released version (a commit with the version
> set to 0.6-incubating-rc1). Thats important to make the release
> reproducible.
> - The web interface's job history is not working (javascript load error)
>
>
> What do you guys think about a changelog? RC1 does not have one.
> I can look for a script to automatically generate a log from the git
> history. JIRA also has support for this, but I think we are not super
> careful about tracking the "fix version" / "affected version" fields.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Henry Saputra <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > Took quick glance at the NOTICE and LICENSE files.
> >
> > According to guidance [1] we just need simple thing in NOTICE file.
> > Most of  Apache products should not be duplicated in the NOTICE file.
> > Only those external source packaged in the source distribution that
> > requires us to copy their NOTICE file should be included.
> > Otherwise we need to keep NOTICE file short and clean.
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:42 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have created artifacts for our first release within Apache.
> > > I don't want to call an official vote on these artifacts since I did
> not
> > > really check them myself (I'm a bit in a hurry right now)
> > >
> > > Artifacts:
> > > http://people.apache.org/~rmetzger/0.6-incubating-rc1/
> > >
> > > Maven Staging Repository:
> > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheflink-1000
> > >
> > > Release Branch:
> > >
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-flink.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release-0.6
> > >
> > > Please give feedback if you found any issues.
> > > I will check the files myself later today and once I'm satisfied, I'll
> > > start the vote.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Robert
> >
>

[Stephan Ewen]

For the changelog, I would suggest to start with the next version, report
changes from the first Apache version on.

Concerning the NOTICE file, I tried to follow that guide. As far as as I
understood it, we need to have the notices of all dependencies that we
ship. I took a look at what some of the other Apache and Apache Licensed
projects did (Netty, Spark, Derby) and tried to follow that style.


   1.

   For any dependency whose bits are bundled
   <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled>,
   consider whether LICENSE and NOTICE need to be modified. (DO NOT modify
   LICENSE or NOTICE for dependencies whose bits are not bundled.)

[Henry Saputra]

I think the important thing from my suggestion for NOTICE file is we
need to include additional NOTICE information from dependencies when
it is required.

Others could chime it but AFAIK dependencies from other ASF projects
do not need to be mentioned.

- Henry

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> For the changelog, I would suggest to start with the next version, report
> changes from the first Apache version on.
>
> Concerning the NOTICE file, I tried to follow that guide. As far as as I
> understood it, we need to have the notices of all dependencies that we
> ship. I took a look at what some of the other Apache and Apache Licensed
> projects did (Netty, Spark, Derby) and tried to follow that style.
>
>
>    1.
>
>    For any dependency whose bits are bundled
>    <http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled>,
>    consider whether LICENSE and NOTICE need to be modified. (DO NOT modify
>    LICENSE or NOTICE for dependencies whose bits are not bundled.)

[Robert Metzger]

I've fixed the little issue I've mentioned with the web interface.

Regarding the copyright notices, I've created a pull request to put my
understanding of the licensing guide up for discussion:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-flink/pull/89 (pls see the description
of the PR).




On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Henry Saputra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think the important thing from my suggestion for NOTICE file is we
> need to include additional NOTICE information from dependencies when
> it is required.
>
> Others could chime it but AFAIK dependencies from other ASF projects
> do not need to be mentioned.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 4:03 AM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > For the changelog, I would suggest to start with the next version, report
> > changes from the first Apache version on.
> >
> > Concerning the NOTICE file, I tried to follow that guide. As far as as I
> > understood it, we need to have the notices of all dependencies that we
> > ship. I took a look at what some of the other Apache and Apache Licensed
> > projects did (Netty, Spark, Derby) and tried to follow that style.
> >
> >
> >    1.
> >
> >    For any dependency whose bits are bundled
> >    <
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled>,
> >    consider whether LICENSE and NOTICE need to be modified. (DO NOT
> modify
> >    LICENSE or NOTICE for dependencies whose bits are not bundled.)
>

[Stephan Ewen]

Okay, this seems to be tricky, and different projects do it in different
ways.

Some projects seem to do it the way I prepared it (Spark or Cassandra) .
See the root level files https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
or https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt

Which way is correct?

Having a fat NOTICE file may be ugly, but it would put us on the safe side,
no?

Robert suggested to have two LICENSE and NOTICE files, one at the source
root, one for the binary distribution. If we go that way, then anyone that
adds Flink as a Maven dependency (which bundles the bits) needs to figure
out that the relevant NOTICE file is only available in the binary
distribution - that the source NOTICE file is not listing all required
entries. Would that really be correct?

[Robert Metzger]

The reason why I kicked of the whole discussion is the following sentence
in the guide Henry posted [1]:
"LICENSE and NOTICE must always be tailored to the content of the specific
distribution they reside within. Dependencies which are not included in the
distribution MUST NOT be added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE and
NOTICE are concerned, *only bundled bits matter."*

The top level LICENSE / NOTICE files end up only in the source release,
which does not contain the source/binary of the dependencies (only
references to them, in the pom files).
Either I've oversight something or Spark and Cassandra have wrong NOTICE
files in their source releases.
I could not find a similar discussion on the legal list here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/. But maybe
thats the right place to ask that question.

[1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Okay, this seems to be tricky, and different projects do it in different
> ways.
>
> Some projects seem to do it the way I prepared it (Spark or Cassandra) .
> See the root level files
> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
> or https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>
> Which way is correct?
>
> Having a fat NOTICE file may be ugly, but it would put us on the safe side,
> no?
>
> Robert suggested to have two LICENSE and NOTICE files, one at the source
> root, one for the binary distribution. If we go that way, then anyone that
> adds Flink as a Maven dependency (which bundles the bits) needs to figure
> out that the relevant NOTICE file is only available in the binary
> distribution - that the source NOTICE file is not listing all required
> entries. Would that really be correct?
>

[Henry Saputra]

The NOTICE and LICENSE is kind of tricky hence the guide is created
but I always feel it created more confusion that clarification.

Like Stephen said, Spark and Cassandra seemed to be in the safe side
meaning jut dump all possible NOTICE from each packaged dependencies
to be safe.
So, for now we could just keep existing fat NOTICE file for first
release candidate and see if we got any comments from other people in
the Incubator PMCs.

- Henry

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The reason why I kicked of the whole discussion is the following sentence
> in the guide Henry posted [1]:
> "LICENSE and NOTICE must always be tailored to the content of the specific
> distribution they reside within. Dependencies which are not included in the
> distribution MUST NOT be added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE and
> NOTICE are concerned, *only bundled bits matter."*
>
> The top level LICENSE / NOTICE files end up only in the source release,
> which does not contain the source/binary of the dependencies (only
> references to them, in the pom files).
> Either I've oversight something or Spark and Cassandra have wrong NOTICE
> files in their source releases.
> I could not find a similar discussion on the legal list here:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/. But maybe
> thats the right place to ask that question.
>
> [1]: http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Okay, this seems to be tricky, and different projects do it in different
>> ways.
>>
>> Some projects seem to do it the way I prepared it (Spark or Cassandra) .
>> See the root level files
>> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
>> or https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt
>>
>> Which way is correct?
>>
>> Having a fat NOTICE file may be ugly, but it would put us on the safe side,
>> no?
>>
>> Robert suggested to have two LICENSE and NOTICE files, one at the source
>> root, one for the binary distribution. If we go that way, then anyone that
>> adds Flink as a Maven dependency (which bundles the bits) needs to figure
>> out that the relevant NOTICE file is only available in the binary
>> distribution - that the source NOTICE file is not listing all required
>> entries. Would that really be correct?
>>

[Stephan Ewen]

Thanks Henry for your comments. I do in general agree that slim notice
files are nicer, but I am thoroughly confused what counts are which
distribution (src, bin, is maven src or bin, where do re-bundlers find the
notices to include, etc) and the Apache guide did not make it clearer for
me.

If you think that we can start with the fat notice file (being safe) and
"thin it out" later (once we figured the right way out), it would be a
great way to go, in my opinion.

It would help us to not loose to much time on that issue and get the first
version released.

Any objections?


On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Henry Saputra <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> The NOTICE and LICENSE is kind of tricky hence the guide is created
> but I always feel it created more confusion that clarification.
>
> Like Stephen said, Spark and Cassandra seemed to be in the safe side
> meaning jut dump all possible NOTICE from each packaged dependencies
> to be safe.
> So, for now we could just keep existing fat NOTICE file for first
> release candidate and see if we got any comments from other people in
> the Incubator PMCs.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Robert Metzger <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > The reason why I kicked of the whole discussion is the following sentence
> > in the guide Henry posted [1]:
> > "LICENSE and NOTICE must always be tailored to the content of the
> specific
> > distribution they reside within. Dependencies which are not included in
> the
> > distribution MUST NOT be added to LICENSE and NOTICE. As far as LICENSE
> and
> > NOTICE are concerned, *only bundled bits matter."*
> >
> > The top level LICENSE / NOTICE files end up only in the source release,
> > which does not contain the source/binary of the dependencies (only
> > references to them, in the pom files).
> > Either I've oversight something or Spark and Cassandra have wrong NOTICE
> > files in their source releases.
> > I could not find a similar discussion on the legal list here:
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/. But maybe
> > thats the right place to ask that question.
> >
> > [1]:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#bundled-vs-non-bundled
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Stephan Ewen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, this seems to be tricky, and different projects do it in different
> >> ways.
> >>
> >> Some projects seem to do it the way I prepared it (Spark or Cassandra) .
> >> See the root level files
> >> https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/NOTICE
> >> or https://github.com/apache/cassandra/blob/trunk/NOTICE.txt
> >>
> >> Which way is correct?
> >>
> >> Having a fat NOTICE file may be ugly, but it would put us on the safe
> side,
> >> no?
> >>
> >> Robert suggested to have two LICENSE and NOTICE files, one at the source
> >> root, one for the binary distribution. If we go that way, then anyone
> that
> >> adds Flink as a Maven dependency (which bundles the bits) needs to
> figure
> >> out that the relevant NOTICE file is only available in the binary
> >> distribution - that the source NOTICE file is not listing all required
> >> entries. Would that really be correct?
> >>
>