[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Hello all,

This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0, release
candidate 0.

Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.

Vote thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c274acf412eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

Result thread:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac251934c7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/

The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0

The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be

Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704

KEYS file available:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS

For information about the contents of this release, see:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes

The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).

[ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
[ ] +0 no opinion
[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...

Best,
Haibin
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Hello all,

Just a gentle reminder that voting is in progress. Please help verify if
the release candidate meets the standard and vote accordingly. Thanks!

Best,
Haibin

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0, release
> candidate 0.
>
> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>
> Vote thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c274acf412
> eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> Result thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac251934c
> 7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/
>
> The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0
>
> The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> 7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704
>
> KEYS file available:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>
> For information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes
>
> The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Best,
> Haibin
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by Haibin Lin
Hi,

Sorry but -1 binding for me due to LICENSE issues but happy to discuss and change my vote depending on what other IPMC members think.

Putting “wherever applicable” is probably not enough to compile with the terms of 3rd party licenses or ASF policy. Most licenses say the full text of the license needs to be included in order to comply with the terms of the license and that normally includes a copyright line. Usually files have the license text as the header so this is probably OK from a licensing point of view but I can see a number of cases here where they don’t. There are also several types of BSD license included not just the 2 clause BSD license listed in license.

I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE has issues
- NOTICE has wrong year
- source files are missing license headers
- no unexpected binary files
- can compile from source

For license all the 3rd party pieces need to be listed in LICENSE. [1] There is also software under other licenses i.e. (zlib) that are are not mentioned in license.

I’m still confused how some files are licensed as they are missing headers (about 600 files) and this make the release hard to review. i.e. How do you tell if someone forget to put an ASF header on a file or is it a 3rd party file and if so how is it licensed?

Also two minor things I noticed with the vote thread:
a) several people said they tested the release from what was on GitHub, the one in dist.apache.org would be the one tested.
b) Votes are pen for a minimum pf 72 hours not exactly 72 hours.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
2. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/blob/master/LICENSE




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Meghna Baijal
Hi Justin,

Thank you for your time to review this Release Candidate.
For this Release I attempted to fix most of the pending license issues and
I have documented all the changes in this wiki -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses
Any comments/feedback would be very helpful.

Also, In this wiki, I have listed the files and folders (with my reasons)
that I have excluded from the Apache RAT check. Are there any files apart
from these excluded ones where you see missing licenses?
(To make the review process easier I will add a ‘rat-excludes’ file to the
src next time.)

The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the
previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make the
required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think
this is a blocker for this release?

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal


On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Sorry but -1 binding for me due to LICENSE issues but happy to discuss and
> change my vote depending on what other IPMC members think.
>
> Putting “wherever applicable” is probably not enough to compile with the
> terms of 3rd party licenses or ASF policy. Most licenses say the full text
> of the license needs to be included in order to comply with the terms of
> the license and that normally includes a copyright line. Usually files have
> the license text as the header so this is probably OK from a licensing
> point of view but I can see a number of cases here where they don’t. There
> are also several types of BSD license included not just the 2 clause BSD
> license listed in license.
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes good
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE has issues
> - NOTICE has wrong year
> - source files are missing license headers
> - no unexpected binary files
> - can compile from source
>
> For license all the 3rd party pieces need to be listed in LICENSE. [1]
> There is also software under other licenses i.e. (zlib) that are are not
> mentioned in license.
>
> I’m still confused how some files are licensed as they are missing headers
> (about 600 files) and this make the release hard to review. i.e. How do you
> tell if someone forget to put an ASF header on a file or is it a 3rd party
> file and if so how is it licensed?
>
> Also two minor things I noticed with the vote thread:
> a) several people said they tested the release from what was on GitHub,
> the one in dist.apache.org would be the one tested.
> b) Votes are pen for a minimum pf 72 hours not exactly 72 hours.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> 2. https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/blob/master/LICENSE
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Haibin Lin
On 31 January 2018 at 21:48, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0, release
> candidate 0.

Reminder: please delete old releases from the ASF mirrors.
It's not fair to expect volunteer mirrors to carry them.

The page:

https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mxnet/

still has 0.11.0, 0.12.0 and 0.12.1

It also has 1.0.0 which should be deleted after 1.1.0 is released and announced.

i.e. please now tidy up:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/mxnet/

And again after every release?

Thanks.

> Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>
> Vote thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c274acf412eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> Result thread:
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac251934c7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/
>
> The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0
>
> The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be
>
> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> 7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704
>
> KEYS file available:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>
> For information about the contents of this release, see:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes
>
> The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
> Best,
> Haibin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Hi Sebb,

I'll clean up the old releases now. Thanks for the reminder.

Best,
Haibin

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 31 January 2018 at 21:48, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0, release
> > candidate 0.
>
> Reminder: please delete old releases from the ASF mirrors.
> It's not fair to expect volunteer mirrors to carry them.
>
> The page:
>
> https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mxnet/
>
> still has 0.11.0, 0.12.0 and 0.12.1
>
> It also has 1.0.0 which should be deleted after 1.1.0 is released and
> announced.
>
> i.e. please now tidy up:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/mxnet/
>
> And again after every release?
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
> >
> > Vote thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c274acf412
> eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > Result thread:
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac251934c
> 7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/
> >
> > The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0
> >
> > The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/
> 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > 7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704
> >
> > KEYS file available:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
> >
> > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> Apache+MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes
> >
> > The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >
> > Best,
> > Haibin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Hi Sebb,

I've deleted the older releases and will remove 1.0.0 after 1.1.0 is
officially announced.

Best,
Haibin

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Sebb,
>
> I'll clean up the old releases now. Thanks for the reminder.
>
> Best,
> Haibin
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 31 January 2018 at 21:48, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0, release
>> > candidate 0.
>>
>> Reminder: please delete old releases from the ASF mirrors.
>> It's not fair to expect volunteer mirrors to carry them.
>>
>> The page:
>>
>> https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mxnet/
>>
>> still has 0.11.0, 0.12.0 and 0.12.1
>>
>> It also has 1.0.0 which should be deleted after 1.1.0 is released and
>> announced.
>>
>> i.e. please now tidy up:
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/mxnet/
>>
>> And again after every release?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>> >
>> > Vote thread:
>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c27
>> 4acf412eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > Result thread:
>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac
>> 251934c7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/
>> >
>> > The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0
>> >
>> > The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/8b3c9ebb7bb
>> 4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be
>> >
>> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>> > 7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704
>> >
>> > KEYS file available:
>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>> >
>> > For information about the contents of this release, see:
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+
>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes
>> >
>> > The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).
>> >
>> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
>> > [ ] +0 no opinion
>> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Haibin
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Justin Mclean
In reply to this post by Meghna Baijal
Hi,

> Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see missing licenses?

You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI would rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell what has been included or not :-)

> The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the
> previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
> understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make the
> required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think
> this is a blocker for this release?

Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

sebb-2-2
In reply to this post by Haibin Lin
On 5 February 2018 at 22:51, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> I've deleted the older releases and will remove 1.0.0 after 1.1.0 is
> officially announced.

OK, thanks.

Please also update any release process docs to ensure tidyup takes
place after every release.

> Best,
> Haibin
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Sebb,
>>
>> I'll clean up the old releases now. Thanks for the reminder.
>>
>> Best,
>> Haibin
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 31 January 2018 at 21:48, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> > Hello all,
>>> >
>>> > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0, release
>>> > candidate 0.
>>>
>>> Reminder: please delete old releases from the ASF mirrors.
>>> It's not fair to expect volunteer mirrors to carry them.
>>>
>>> The page:
>>>
>>> https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mxnet/
>>>
>>> still has 0.11.0, 0.12.0 and 0.12.1
>>>
>>> It also has 1.0.0 which should be deleted after 1.1.0 is released and
>>> announced.
>>>
>>> i.e. please now tidy up:
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/mxnet/
>>>
>>> And again after every release?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the release.
>>> >
>>> > Vote thread:
>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c27
>>> 4acf412eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>> >
>>> > Result thread:
>>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac
>>> 251934c7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>>> >
>>> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:
>>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/
>>> >
>>> > The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
>>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0
>>> >
>>> > The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
>>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/8b3c9ebb7bb
>>> 4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be
>>> >
>>> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>>> > 7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704
>>> >
>>> > KEYS file available:
>>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>>> >
>>> > For information about the contents of this release, see:
>>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+
>>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes
>>> >
>>> > The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).
>>> >
>>> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
>>> > [ ] +0 no opinion
>>> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> > Haibin
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Hi Sebb,

Thanks for the suggestion. I've updated the release process wiki at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-3.7.CleanupolderreleasesonASFmirrors
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-3.7.CleanupolderreleasesonASFmirrors>
to
include the steps to remove old releases.

Best,
Haibin

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 3:04 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 February 2018 at 22:51, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi Sebb,
> >
> > I've deleted the older releases and will remove 1.0.0 after 1.1.0 is
> > officially announced.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> Please also update any release process docs to ensure tidyup takes
> place after every release.
>
> > Best,
> > Haibin
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Sebb,
> >>
> >> I'll clean up the old releases now. Thanks for the reminder.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Haibin
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:20 PM, sebb <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 31 January 2018 at 21:48, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>> > Hello all,
> >>> >
> >>> > This is a call for a releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0,
> release
> >>> > candidate 0.
> >>>
> >>> Reminder: please delete old releases from the ASF mirrors.
> >>> It's not fair to expect volunteer mirrors to carry them.
> >>>
> >>> The page:
> >>>
> >>> https://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/mxnet/
> >>>
> >>> still has 0.11.0, 0.12.0 and 0.12.1
> >>>
> >>> It also has 1.0.0 which should be deleted after 1.1.0 is released and
> >>> announced.
> >>>
> >>> i.e. please now tidy up:
> >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/mxnet/
> >>>
> >>> And again after every release?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> > Apache MXNet (incubating) community has voted and approved the
> release.
> >>> >
> >>> > Vote thread:
> >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/4b9310aaa1e5c378aa91c27
> >>> 4acf412eb5b495a10fe7dad0fab653436@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >>> >
> >>> > Result thread:
> >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9048b226cd7f86f1fec84ac
> >>> 251934c7877c9442e5f053f5f2ccd8c52@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> >>> >
> >>> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found
> at:
> >>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.1.0.rc0/
> >>> >
> >>> > The tag to be voted upon is 1.1.0.rc0:
> >>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/releases/tag/1.1.0.rc0
> >>> >
> >>> > The release hash is 8b3c9ebb7bb4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be:
> >>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/commit/8b3c9ebb7bb
> >>> 4a9e8ee88e7222a718f7fa1c9a6be
> >>> >
> >>> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> >>> > 7302 629A 6791 AC2C 3593  B9A0 015E D8A2 9C81 5704
> >>> >
> >>> > KEYS file available:
> >>> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
> >>> >
> >>> > For information about the contents of this release, see:
> >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Apache+
> >>> MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.1.0+Release+Notes
> >>> >
> >>> > The vote will end at 2 pm on Sunday (Feb 3rd).
> >>> >
> >>> > [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.1.0
> >>> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> >>> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
> >>> >
> >>> > Best,
> >>> > Haibin
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Henri Yandell-3
In reply to this post by Justin Mclean
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see missing
> licenses?
>
> You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI would
> rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is
> there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for
> instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but
> without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell
> what has been included or not :-)
>

Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so
it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control.
ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to me.
Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it
doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak.


>
> > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the
> > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
> > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make the
> > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you think
> > this is a blocker for this release?
>
> Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently.
> <[hidden email]>
>

Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get worse.

Hen
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Thank you for the comments. The license issue should be fixed in the next
RC then.

Other than that, is moving submodules like dmlc-core/nnvm/ps-lite etc. to
3rd-party a must-have for the the next release candidate of 1.1.0? In the
original LICENSE file (MXNet 1.0.0) we explicitly state that these
submodules are provided under apache 2.0 license. Moving these submodules
requires change in multiple build configuration (cmake & make) for multiple
build targets (MXNet core / cpp-packge / amalgamation). I suggest creating
a JIRA issue for this and making sure this is addressed in the release
after 1.1.0. Is that reasonable?

Thanks!

Best,
Haibin

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Hen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see
> missing
> > licenses?
> >
> > You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI
> would
> > rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is
> > there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for
> > instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but
> > without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell
> > what has been included or not :-)
> >
>
> Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so
> it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control.
> ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to me.
> Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it
> doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak.
>
>
> >
> > > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from the
> > > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
> > > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make
> the
> > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you
> think
> > > this is a blocker for this release?
> >
> > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote differently.
> > <[hidden email]>
> >
>
> Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get
> worse.
>
> Hen
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Meghna Baijal
I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I
have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here.
Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701

It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other
necessary changes.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Haibin Lin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you for the comments. The license issue should be fixed in the next
> RC then.
>
> Other than that, is moving submodules like dmlc-core/nnvm/ps-lite etc. to
> 3rd-party a must-have for the the next release candidate of 1.1.0? In the
> original LICENSE file (MXNet 1.0.0) we explicitly state that these
> submodules are provided under apache 2.0 license. Moving these submodules
> requires change in multiple build configuration (cmake & make) for multiple
> build targets (MXNet core / cpp-packge / amalgamation). I suggest creating
> a JIRA issue for this and making sure this is addressed in the release
> after 1.1.0. Is that reasonable?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Haibin
>
> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Hen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Are there any files apart from these excluded ones where you see
> > missing
> > > licenses?
> > >
> > > You don’t need to exclude files that are under a different licensesI
> > would
> > > rather see them in the rat report so I know what 3rd party software is
> > > there. And yes I noticed a couple (which would not be a blocker) for
> > > instance some zlib licensed code and code under non 2 clause BSD, but
> > > without 3rd party software listed in LICENSE it’s a little hard to tell
> > > what has been included or not :-)
> > >
> >
> > Still need to move the DMLC code into a dmlc or third-party directory so
> > it's clearer which files are outside of the project's ability to control.
> > ie) excluding files because we can't fix without forking seems fine to
> me.
> > Unless we just say "The rat report will fail on these directories" and it
> > doesn't affect a vote, but that seems weak.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > The changes to the top Level LICENSE file was a recommendation from
> the
> > > > previous release to make this file easier to maintain. However, I do
> > > > understand your concern (specially about the BSD license). I can make
> > the
> > > > required change and put this fix onto the master branch, but do you
> > think
> > > > this is a blocker for this release?
> > >
> > > Yes which is why I've voted -1. Other IPMC members may vote
> differently.
> > > <[hidden email]>
> > >
> >
> > Agreed. -1 on my part. The LICENSE file is critical and shouldn't get
> > worse.
> >
> > Hen
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I
> have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here.
> Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701
>
> It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other
> necessary changes.

Please follow the process at [1], what important is that the PPMC knows how to do this on their own.

I would guess that a little more needs to be done than just reverting the changes as wouldn’t that mean the feedback from the previous release would of of been reverted as well?

Double check that:
- all 3rd party bundled software is mentioned in license (it's optional if you want to put ALv2 in there)
- that only bundled things are mentioned and that dependancies are not
- the full text of 3rd party licenses is included or pointed to from the LICENSE file

If you miss a couple that’s OK, as every thing has a permissive license, we can fix that in a later release.

Thanks,
Justin

1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Meghna Baijal
Thanks Justin!

I have reviewed this PR
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701> and made a few more
changes. The final changes to the LICENSE file can be summarized as follows
-
1. I have reverted commit 8930d96 (PR #9484)
2. Revisited some comments from previous release which are now relevant and
made appropriate changes - based on points 8-11 and 13 to 19 in this wiki,
section E
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses>
3. Ran a fresh search for dependencies with a separate license and added
the missing ones to the LICENSE file.
4. Reviewed the Apache Policy and confirmed to the best of my understanding
the LICENSE file complies with the guidelines.

Please let me know if anyone sees any other major issues in this file.

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > I have created a PR to revert the LICENSE file to the previous version. I
> > have also updated this file with a few packages that were missing here.
> > Link to PR - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9701
> >
> > It would be great if you could review this PR to suggest any other
> > necessary changes.
>
> Please follow the process at [1], what important is that the PPMC knows
> how to do this on their own.
>
> I would guess that a little more needs to be done than just reverting the
> changes as wouldn’t that mean the feedback from the previous release would
> of of been reverted as well?
>
> Double check that:
> - all 3rd party bundled software is mentioned in license (it's optional if
> you want to put ALv2 in there)
> - that only bundled things are mentioned and that dependancies are not
> - the full text of 3rd party licenses is included or pointed to from the
> LICENSE file
>
> If you miss a couple that’s OK, as every thing has a permissive license,
> we can fix that in a later release.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Justin Mclean
Hi,

> Please let me know if anyone sees any other major issues in this file.

Thanks - that's looking a lot better. I did notice a question in the wiki page "Question 5: is it ok to include a necessary jar?”. Compiled source code can't be included in a source release so no it’s not OK to include it.

Thanks,
Justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Meghna Baijal
Thanks Justin,
We did remove that jar before creating this RC0 but thanks for answering
the question.

Meghna

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Please let me know if anyone sees any other major issues in this file.
>
> Thanks - that's looking a lot better. I did notice a question in the wiki
> page "Question 5: is it ok to include a necessary jar?”. Compiled source
> code can't be included in a source release so no it’s not OK to include it.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.1.0 release RC0

Haibin Lin
Hi Henri and Justin,

Thanks for the prompt feedbacks on the LICENSE file!

I also posted a PR
<https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/9706/files> to update the
years to be 2017-2018 in the NOTICE file. Furthermore, I created a task of
moving all submodules to the 3rdparty folder in JIRA at
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MXNET-16, which should be fixed by
the release after 1.1.0.

Hi everyone,

Are there any other outstanding concerns regarding this RC? If not, I'll
move forward and create an RC1 with the updated LICENSE and NOTICE file.
Thanks!

Best,
Haibin

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Meghna Baijal <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Thanks Justin,
> We did remove that jar before creating this RC0 but thanks for answering
> the question.
>
> Meghna
>
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Justin Mclean <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Please let me know if anyone sees any other major issues in this file.
> >
> > Thanks - that's looking a lot better. I did notice a question in the wiki
> > page "Question 5: is it ok to include a necessary jar?”. Compiled source
> > code can't be included in a source release so no it’s not OK to include
> it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
>