[RESULT] [VOTE] Apache Ignite 1.2.0 release (RC2)

[yzhdanov]

Guys,

ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
Thanks to those who voted:

   - Gianfranco
   - Sergi
   - Branko (binding)
   - Alexey Goncharuk
   - Valentin
   - Semyon
   - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)

I will start vote on general list shortly.

Thanks!

--Yakov

[Branko Čibej]

On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:

> Guys,
>
> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
> Thanks to those who voted:
>
>    - Gianfranco
>    - Sergi
>    - Branko (binding)
>    - Alexey Goncharuk
>    - Valentin
>    - Semyon
>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
>
> I will start vote on general list shortly.

By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where are
the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.

-- Brane

[yzhdanov]

Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in DEVNOTES.txt

Is that what you ask about?

--Yakov

2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:

> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
> > Thanks to those who voted:
> >
> >    - Gianfranco
> >    - Sergi
> >    - Branko (binding)
> >    - Alexey Goncharuk
> >    - Valentin
> >    - Semyon
> >    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> >
> > I will start vote on general list shortly.
>
> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where are
> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
> the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.
>
> -- Brane
>

[Branko Čibej]

On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in DEVNOTES.txt
>
> Is that what you ask about?

No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.

-- Brane

> 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>
>> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
>>> Thanks to those who voted:
>>>
>>>    - Gianfranco
>>>    - Sergi
>>>    - Branko (binding)
>>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
>>>    - Valentin
>>>    - Semyon
>>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
>>>
>>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
>> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where are
>> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
>> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
>> the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>

[Anton Vinogradov]

Brane,
I'm working on this issue (IGNITE-1060)

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Branko Čibej <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> DEVNOTES.txt
> >
> > Is that what you ask about?
>
> No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
>
> -- Brane
>
> > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >>> Guys,
> >>>
> >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
> >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> >>>
> >>>    - Gianfranco
> >>>    - Sergi
> >>>    - Branko (binding)
> >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> >>>    - Valentin
> >>>    - Semyon
> >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> >>>
> >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where
> are
> >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
> >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.
> >>
> >> -- Brane
> >>
>
>

[Branko Čibej]

That issue has abslutely nothing to do with my question.


On 30.06.2015 11:38, Anton Vinogradov wrote:

> Brane,
> I'm working on this issue (IGNITE-1060)
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Branko Čibej <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>>> Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
>> DEVNOTES.txt
>>> Is that what you ask about?
>> No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
>> convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
>> not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
>>
>> -- Brane
>>
>>> 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>>>
>>>> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
>>>>> Thanks to those who voted:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Gianfranco
>>>>>    - Sergi
>>>>>    - Branko (binding)
>>>>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
>>>>>    - Valentin
>>>>>    - Semyon
>>>>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
>>>>>
>>>>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
>>>> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where
>> are
>>>> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
>>>> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
>>>> the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.
>>>>
>>>> -- Brane
>>>>
>>

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to add
one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?

Cos

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:

> On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in DEVNOTES.txt
> >
> > Is that what you ask about?
>
> No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
>
> -- Brane
>
> > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> >
> >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >>> Guys,
> >>>
> >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2 binding).
> >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> >>>
> >>>    - Gianfranco
> >>>    - Sergi
> >>>    - Branko (binding)
> >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> >>>    - Valentin
> >>>    - Semyon
> >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> >>>
> >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where are
> >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
> >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.
> >>
> >> -- Brane
> >>
>

[Anton Vinogradov]

Hello,
As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a part
of Ignite binary distribution.
But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes under
Apache licence (for example -
https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
).
Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to
> add
> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?
>
> Cos
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> DEVNOTES.txt
> > >
> > > Is that what you ask about?
> >
> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> >
> > -- Brane
> >
> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > >
> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > >>> Guys,
> > >>>
> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> binding).
> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > >>>
> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > >>>    - Sergi
> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > >>>    - Valentin
> > >>>    - Semyon
> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > >>>
> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@: Where
> are
> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building them.
> > >>
> > >> -- Brane
> > >>
> >
>

[Anton Vinogradov]

Also,
Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release build and
as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?

Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile turned on?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
> As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a part
> of Ignite binary distribution.
> But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes under
> Apache licence (for example -
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> ).
> Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to
>> add
>> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?
>>
>> Cos
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
>> DEVNOTES.txt
>> > >
>> > > Is that what you ask about?
>> >
>> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
>> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
>> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
>> >
>> > -- Brane
>> >
>> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
>> > >
>> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
>> > >>> Guys,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
>> binding).
>> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>    - Gianfranco
>> > >>>    - Sergi
>> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
>> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
>> > >>>    - Valentin
>> > >>>    - Semyon
>> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
>> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
>> Where are
>> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
>> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware and
>> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building
>> them.
>> > >>
>> > >> -- Brane
>> > >>
>> >
>>
>
>

[dsetrakyan]

GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
turned on.

The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our users
should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it
directly from the Apache Ignite website directly.

D.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Also,
> Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release build and
> as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
> Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?
>
> Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile turned
> on?
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a part
> > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes under
> > Apache licence (for example -
> >
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > ).
> > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to
> >> add
> >> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Cos
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> >> DEVNOTES.txt
> >> > >
> >> > > Is that what you ask about?
> >> >
> >> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> >> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> >> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> >> >
> >> > -- Brane
> >> >
> >> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> >> > >
> >> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> >> > >>> Guys,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> >> binding).
> >> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> >> > >>>    - Sergi
> >> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> >> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> >> > >>>    - Valentin
> >> > >>>    - Semyon
> >> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> >> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
> >> Where are
> >> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> >> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware
> and
> >> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building
> >> them.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -- Brane
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

[dsetrakyan]

Cos, Brane,

Do you have any idea here? It looks like Tomcat has the whole Servlet API
source code imported and licensed under Apache:

https://github.com/apache/tomcat/tree/trunk/java/javax/servlet

D.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hello,
> As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a part
> of Ignite binary distribution.
> But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes under
> Apache licence (for example -
>
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> ).
> Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to
> > add
> > one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> > DEVNOTES.txt
> > > >
> > > > Is that what you ask about?
> > >
> > > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> > > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> > > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > >
> > > -- Brane
> > >
> > > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > >
> > > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > >>> Guys,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> > binding).
> > > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > > >>>    - Sergi
> > > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > > >>>    - Valentin
> > > >>>    - Semyon
> > > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
> Where
> > are
> > > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> > > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware
> and
> > > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building
> them.
> > > >>
> > > >> -- Brane
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
> turned on.
>
> The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our users
> should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
> binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it

There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only source code.

Cos

> directly from the Apache Ignite website directly.
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Also,
> > Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release build and
> > as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
> > Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?
> >
> > Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile turned
> > on?
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> > > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a part
> > > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes under
> > > Apache licence (for example -
> > >
> > https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > > ).
> > > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to
> > >> add
> > >> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?
> > >>
> > >> Cos
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > >> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > >> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> > >> DEVNOTES.txt
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Is that what you ask about?
> > >> >
> > >> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> > >> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> > >> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > >> >
> > >> > -- Brane
> > >> >
> > >> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > >> > >>> Guys,
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> > >> binding).
> > >> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > >> > >>>    - Sergi
> > >> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > >> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > >> > >>>    - Valentin
> > >> > >>>    - Semyon
> > >> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > >> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
> > >> Where are
> > >> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> > >> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware
> > and
> > >> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building
> > >> them.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -- Brane
> > >> > >>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

I don't want to second-guess the Tomcat community. But considering they went
through all IP-clearance, etc. I'd say let's change the dependencies to use
the Tomcat's version of the artifacts. Can we?

Cos

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:55AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:

> Cos, Brane,
>
> Do you have any idea here? It looks like Tomcat has the whole Servlet API
> source code imported and licensed under Apache:
>
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/tree/trunk/java/javax/servlet
>
> D.
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Anton Vinogradov <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a part
> > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes under
> > Apache licence (for example -
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > ).
> > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be easy to
> > > add
> > > one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well. Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> > > DEVNOTES.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that what you ask about?
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally, these
> > > > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF infrastructure,
> > > > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > > >
> > > > -- Brane
> > > >
> > > > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > >>> Guys,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> > > binding).
> > > > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > > > >>>    - Sergi
> > > > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > > > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > >>>    - Valentin
> > > > >>>    - Semyon
> > > > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > > > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
> > Where
> > > are
> > > > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built? Even if
> > > > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled hardware
> > and
> > > > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for building
> > them.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -- Brane
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >

[dsetrakyan]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
> > turned on.
> >
> > The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our
> users
> > should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
> > binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it
>
> There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only source
> code.
>

Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite binary
release on the Apache Ignite website?

>
> Cos
>
> > directly from the Apache Ignite website directly.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Also,
> > > Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release build
> and
> > > as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
> > > Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?
> > >
> > > Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile
> turned
> > > on?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> [hidden email]
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> > > > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a
> part
> > > > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > > > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes
> under
> > > > Apache licence (for example -
> > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > > > ).
> > > > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be
> easy to
> > > >> add
> > > >> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well.
> Thoughts?
> > > >>
> > > >> Cos
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > >> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > >> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> > > >> DEVNOTES.txt
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Is that what you ask about?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally,
> these
> > > >> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF
> infrastructure,
> > > >> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -- Brane
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > >> > >>> Guys,
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> > > >> binding).
> > > >> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > > >> > >>>    - Sergi
> > > >> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > > >> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > > >> > >>>    - Valentin
> > > >> > >>>    - Semyon
> > > >> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > > >> > >>>
> > > >> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > > >> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
> > > >> Where are
> > > >> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built?
> Even if
> > > >> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled
> hardware
> > > and
> > > >> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for
> building
> > > >> them.
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> -- Brane
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

[Konstantin Boudnik-2]

On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
> > > turned on.
> > >
> > > The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our
> > users
> > > should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
> > > binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it
> >
> > There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only source
> > code.
>
> Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite binary
> release on the Apache Ignite website?

As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries" not a
binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again).

Cos

> > Cos
> >
> > > directly from the Apache Ignite website directly.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also,
> > > > Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release build
> > and
> > > > as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
> > > > Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?
> > > >
> > > > Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile
> > turned
> > > > on?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > [hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1 (CDDL +
> > > > > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact as a
> > part
> > > > > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > > > > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*) classes
> > under
> > > > > Apache licence (for example -
> > > > >
> > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > > > > ).
> > > > > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be
> > easy to
> > > > >> add
> > > > >> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well.
> > Thoughts?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Cos
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > >> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > >> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered in
> > > > >> DEVNOTES.txt
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Is that what you ask about?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally,
> > these
> > > > >> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF
> > infrastructure,
> > > > >> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -- Brane
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > >> > >>> Guys,
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7 votes (2
> > > > >> binding).
> > > > >> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > > > >> > >>>    - Sergi
> > > > >> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > > > >> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > >> > >>>    - Valentin
> > > > >> > >>>    - Semyon
> > > > >> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > > > >> > >>>
> > > > >> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > > > >> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on general@:
> > > > >> Where are
> > > > >> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built?
> > Even if
> > > > >> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled
> > hardware
> > > > and
> > > > >> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for
> > building
> > > > >> them.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> -- Brane
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >

[dsetrakyan]

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
> > > > turned on.
> > > >
> > > > The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our
> > > users
> > > > should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
> > > > binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it
> > >
> > > There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only
> source
> > > code.
> >
> > Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite binary
> > release on the Apache Ignite website?
>
> As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries"
> not a
> binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again).
>

We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them
"convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well.

>
> Cos
>
> > > Cos
> > >
> > > > directly from the Apache Ignite website directly.
> > > >
> > > > D.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Also,
> > > > > Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release
> build
> > > and
> > > > > as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
> > > > > Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile
> > > turned
> > > > > on?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > [hidden email]
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1
> (CDDL +
> > > > > > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact
> as a
> > > part
> > > > > > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > > > > > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*)
> classes
> > > under
> > > > > > Apache licence (for example -
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > > > > > ).
> > > > > > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> [hidden email]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should be
> > > easy to
> > > > > >> add
> > > > > >> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well.
> > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Cos
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > > >> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > >> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered
> in
> > > > > >> DEVNOTES.txt
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Is that what you ask about?
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done. Ideally,
> > > these
> > > > > >> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF
> > > infrastructure,
> > > > > >> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > -- Brane
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > >> > >>> Guys,
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7
> votes (2
> > > > > >> binding).
> > > > > >> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Sergi
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Valentin
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Semyon
> > > > > >> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > >> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > > > > >> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on
> general@:
> > > > > >> Where are
> > > > > >> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being built?
> > > Even if
> > > > > >> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled
> > > hardware
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for
> > > building
> > > > > >> them.
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> > >> -- Brane
> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>

[Anton Vinogradov]

Cos,
correct me if I'm wrong,
We able to make any "convenience binaries", with any license type of
included dependencies, for example (l)gpl, and upload them to Ignite site,
but each "convenience binary" must contain proper LICENSE and NOTICE files.

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > > GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have
> LGPL
> > > > > turned on.
> > > > >
> > > > > The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because
> our
> > > > users
> > > > > should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache
> Ignite
> > > > > binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download
> it
> > > >
> > > > There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only
> > source
> > > > code.
> > >
> > > Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite
> binary
> > > release on the Apache Ignite website?
> >
> > As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries"
> > not a
> > binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again).
> >
>
> We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them
> "convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well.
>
>
> >
> > Cos
> >
> > > > Cos
> > > >
> > > > > directly from the Apache Ignite website directly.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also,
> > > > > > Currently lgpl profile is turned on during Ignite Fabric Release
> > build
> > > > and
> > > > > > as a result distribution contain lgpl artifacts.
> > > > > > Should we build Igrite releases without lgpl profile in future?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it legal to build GridGain Community Edition with lgpl profile
> > > > turned
> > > > > > on?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > As Justin said we have dependency on javax.servlet-api-3.0.1
> > (CDDL +
> > > > > > > GPLv2). As far as I understang we can not ptovide this artifact
> > as a
> > > > part
> > > > > > > of Ignite binary distribution.
> > > > > > > But I found that Apache Tomcat have same (javax.servlet.*)
> > classes
> > > > under
> > > > > > > Apache licence (for example -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/tomcat/blob/trunk/java/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.java
> > > > > > > ).
> > > > > > > Is there any chances to use these classes at Ignite?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> > [hidden email]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> We have a nighly build going on builds.apache.org. It should
> be
> > > > easy to
> > > > > > >> add
> > > > > > >> one to do the release's convenience binaries there as well.
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Cos
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 07:18PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > > > > >> > On 26.06.2015 14:52, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > Brane, mvn clean package does this. The process is covered
> > in
> > > > > > >> DEVNOTES.txt
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Is that what you ask about?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > No, I'm asking where (on which machine) this is done.
> Ideally,
> > > > these
> > > > > > >> > convenience binaries should be build on controlled ASF
> > > > infrastructure,
> > > > > > >> > not on some random (possibly infected) developer's laptop.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > -- Brane
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > 2015-06-26 9:33 GMT+03:00 Branko Čibej <[hidden email]
> >:
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > >> On 22.06.2015 12:20, Yakov Zhdanov wrote:
> > > > > > >> > >>> Guys,
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>> ignite-1.2.0-incubating-rc2 has been accepted with 7
> > votes (2
> > > > > > >> binding).
> > > > > > >> > >>> Thanks to those who voted:
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Gianfranco
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Sergi
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Branko (binding)
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Alexey Goncharuk
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Valentin
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Semyon
> > > > > > >> > >>>    - Konstantin Boudnik (binding)
> > > > > > >> > >>>
> > > > > > >> > >>> I will start vote on general list shortly.
> > > > > > >> > >> By the way, and before we get hammered about this on
> > general@:
> > > > > > >> Where are
> > > > > > >> > >> the 'convenience binaries' for Ignite releases being
> built?
> > > > Even if
> > > > > > >> > >> they're not official, they should be built on controlled
> > > > hardware
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> > >> the release process doc should contain instructions for
> > > > building
> > > > > > >> them.
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> > >> -- Brane
> > > > > > >> > >>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
>

[Branko Čibej]

On 01.07.2015 21:07, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
>>>>> GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
>>>>> turned on.
>>>>>
>>>>> The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our
>>>> users
>>>>> should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
>>>>> binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it
>>>> There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only
>> source
>>>> code.
>>> Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite binary
>>> release on the Apache Ignite website?
>> As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries"
>> not a
>> binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again).
>>
> We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them
> "convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well.

I'm more concerned with your assertion that "users should build with
LGPL libraries included." This implies that the LGPL bits are /not/
optional for full functionality, which is what I've been told several
times in the past.

"Optional" means the code works and is fully functional without the
dependency. If you can't achieve that with Ignite without the LGPL bits,
then you have a moderately huge rewrite ahead of you before you can even
think of graduating, not least because you seem to view the ASF policies
as something to work around, not something to conform to.

So can I have a straight answer? Was all this optional LGPL talk just to
fit into ASF policies, or is it actually true? And let's clear this up
here please before the peanut gallery of the IPMC starts voicing 573
different opinions.

-- Brane

[dsetrakyan]

Brane,

LGPL is optional.

The convenience binary release of Apache Ignite on the website does not
have any LGPL libraries.

The official source code release can be built with 2 options: LGPL "on" or
"off". I initially thought that it should be "on" by default, but now I
think it should be turned "off" by default because if someone builds it, we
want them to safely redistribute it.

I think this is what we previously decided anyway, so no change.

D.




On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Branko Čibej <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 01.07.2015 21:07, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:44AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> >>>>> GridGain community edition is not governed by Apache should have LGPL
> >>>>> turned on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The LGPL profile in Maven should be turned on by default because our
> >>>> users
> >>>>> should build with LGPL libraries included. However, the Apache Ignite
> >>>>> binary release should have LGPL turned off, as users can download it
> >>>> There's no such thing as Apache binary release: ASF releases only
> >> source
> >>>> code.
> >>> Cos, of course we know this. How should we call the Apache Ignite
> binary
> >>> release on the Apache Ignite website?
> >> As has been discussed a numerous times, these are "convenience binaries"
> >> not a
> >> binary release. The latter will be frown upon by IPMC (again).
> >>
> > We call them correctly on the website. I will make sure to call them
> > "convenience" binaries in the dev list communication as well.
>
> I'm more concerned with your assertion that "users should build with
> LGPL libraries included." This implies that the LGPL bits are /not/
> optional for full functionality, which is what I've been told several
> times in the past.
>
> "Optional" means the code works and is fully functional without the
> dependency. If you can't achieve that with Ignite without the LGPL bits,
> then you have a moderately huge rewrite ahead of you before you can even
> think of graduating, not least because you seem to view the ASF policies
> as something to work around, not something to conform to.
>
> So can I have a straight answer? Was all this optional LGPL talk just to
> fit into ASF policies, or is it actually true? And let's clear this up
> here please before the peanut gallery of the IPMC starts voicing 573
> different opinions.
>
> -- Brane
>
>