Feedback on release candidate for 0.2

[srowen]

Ran into this --

[INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
[ERROR] Error loading supplemental data models: Could not find
resource 'supplemental-models.xml'.
org.codehaus.plexus.resource.loader.ResourceNotFoundException: Could
not find resource 'supplemental-models.xml'.

I know we solved this by adding a file,
src/main/appended-resources/supplemental-models.xml. I guess it just
needs to be packaged. I'll look at that -- Isabel you might know more
about this.

[Isabel Drost-4]

On Wed Sean Owen <srowen@...> wrote:

> Ran into this --

Currently when trying to build one of the tests fails for me.

 

> [INFO] [remote-resources:process {execution: default}]
> [ERROR] Error loading supplemental data models: Could not find
> resource 'supplemental-models.xml'.
> org.codehaus.plexus.resource.loader.ResourceNotFoundException: Could
> not find resource 'supplemental-models.xml'.
>
> I know we solved this by adding a file,
> src/main/appended-resources/supplemental-models.xml. I guess it just
> needs to be packaged. I'll look at that -- Isabel you might know more
> about this.

That file should contain licensing information for all artifacts that
we depend on through maven that have no description through apache
deployed resources. However I do see it when unpacking the tar.gz file
- it is located under "mahout-0.2/src/main/appended-resources/"

More information on that:

http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-remote-resources-plugin/supplemental-models.html

Isabel

[Isabel Drost-4]

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:03:51 +0100
Isabel Drost <isabel@...> wrote:

> On Wed Sean Owen <srowen@...> wrote:
>
> > Ran into this --
>
> Currently when trying to build one of the tests fails for me.

Sorry - forgot to mention the failing test in my last mail:

(org.apache.mahout.clustering.kmeans.TestKmeansClustering) Time
elapsed: 18.9 sec  <<< FAILURE!

Will test on my own laptop to see whether this is simply an environment
issue.

Isabel

[srowen]

Update on this -- actually, I was building mahout-core only and that
is what fails. Building the whole thing works. Is that about right? I
imagine so, even if it seems like core should build by itself. (Or
else it seems the failure I saw is avoidable)

I don't get a build failure, wonder what the nature of this error you see is?

The artifact looks good enough to me, +1


On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Isabel Drost <isabel@...> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:03:51 +0100
> Isabel Drost <isabel@...> wrote:
>
>> On Wed Sean Owen <srowen@...> wrote:
>>
>> > Ran into this --
>>
>> Currently when trying to build one of the tests fails for me.
>
> Sorry - forgot to mention the failing test in my last mail:
>
> (org.apache.mahout.clustering.kmeans.TestKmeansClustering) Time
> elapsed: 18.9 sec  <<< FAILURE!
>
> Will test on my own laptop to see whether this is simply an environment
> issue.
>
> Isabel
>

[Grant Ingersoll-6]

Let me try to get to the signatures, then I will call a full vote.  
Hopefully, some of us Mahouts can carve out some time at ApacheCon to  
work.

On Oct 30, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Sean Owen wrote:

> Update on this -- actually, I was building mahout-core only and that
> is what fails. Building the whole thing works. Is that about right? I
> imagine so, even if it seems like core should build by itself. (Or
> else it seems the failure I saw is avoidable)
>
> I don't get a build failure, wonder what the nature of this error  
> you see is?
>
> The artifact looks good enough to me, +1
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Isabel Drost <isabel@...>  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:03:51 +0100
>> Isabel Drost <isabel@...> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed Sean Owen <srowen@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ran into this --
>>>
>>> Currently when trying to build one of the tests fails for me.
>>
>> Sorry - forgot to mention the failing test in my last mail:
>>
>> (org.apache.mahout.clustering.kmeans.TestKmeansClustering) Time
>> elapsed: 18.9 sec  <<< FAILURE!
>>
>> Will test on my own laptop to see whether this is simply an  
>> environment
>> issue.
>>
>> Isabel
>>

[Isabel Drost-4]

On Friday 30 October 2009 22:16:59 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Hopefully, some of us Mahouts can carve out some time at ApacheCon to
> work.

I will arrive Monday afternoon and stay until the following Sunday morning - I
would guess that there should be some time in between to work on the release.

Isabel

--
QOTD: Political history is far too criminal a subject to be a fit thing to
teach children.   -- W. H. Auden
  |\      _,,,---,,_       Web:   <http://www.isabel-drost.de>
  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_  
 |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) (fL)  IM:  <xmpp://MaineC.@...>

[Jake Mannix]

Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we planning
on having
an informal one sometime?  Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is
Hadoop, we
could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday
night?

Any interest?

  -jake

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Isabel Drost <isabel@...> wrote:

> On Friday 30 October 2009 22:16:59 Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > Hopefully, some of us Mahouts can carve out some time at ApacheCon to
> > work.
>
> I will arrive Monday afternoon and stay until the following Sunday morning
> - I
> would guess that there should be some time in between to work on the
> release.
>
> Isabel
>
> --
> QOTD: Political history is far too criminal a subject to be a fit thing to
> teach children.   -- W. H. Auden
>  |\      _,,,---,,_       Web:   <http://www.isabel-drost.de>
>  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_
>  |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
> '---''(_/--'  `-'\_) (fL)  IM:  <xmpp://MaineC.@...>
>
>

[Isabel Drost-4]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:36:29AM -0700, Jake Mannix wrote:
> Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we planning
> on having  an informal one sometime?  Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs
> is Hadoop, we could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or
> Friday night?

Friday night sounds good - after the Lucene or Hadoop meetup would be fine with me as well.

In case of Friday: Should I include a tiny little bit of advertisement for the informal meetup in my talk on Mahout?

> Any interest?

+1

Isabel

[Grant Ingersoll-6]

On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:

> Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we  
> planning
> on having
> an informal one sometime?  Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is
> Hadoop, we
> could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday
> night?
>
> Any interest?

We can talk about Mahout at the Lucene one, but I wouldn't mind some  
less formal discussion.  We should have a good chunk of Mahout people  
at AC

[Jake Mannix]

Any other thoughts on getting together?  I've met Grant and I see Ted every
so often, but I haven't met any of the rest of you.

Quick roll-call: who's already in Oakland or are planning to be there this
week for ApacheCon?  In particular:

  * ) how many of us will be at Lucene MeetUp tuesday night?

      - Jake Mannix
      - Grant Ingersoll
      - (add your name here when you reply?)

  * ) how many of us will be at the Hadoop MeetUp thursday night?

      - Jake Mannix
      - (add your name here?)

  * ) who would rather get together on Friday night more informally, and
Isabel can advertise for this in her Friday Mahout talk.

     - +0 from me (I'll go with the majority on this one)


  -jake

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...>wrote:

>
> On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
>
>  Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we
>> planning
>> on having
>> an informal one sometime?  Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is
>> Hadoop, we
>> could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday
>> night?
>>
>> Any interest?
>>
>
> We can talk about Mahout at the Lucene one, but I wouldn't mind some less
> formal discussion.  We should have a good chunk of Mahout people at AC
>
>
>

[srowen]

I would, if I weren't 5000 miles away!

It's of course going to be a good chance to promote and socialize
Mahout. Since it looks like we're, what, actually done with the 0.2
release? would be a real shame if you couldn't point the interested at
a shiny new 0.2 release to dig into.

Is there anything I can help on that front? the artifact looks good.
Can I take it forward?

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.mannix@...> wrote:

> Any other thoughts on getting together?  I've met Grant and I see Ted every
> so often, but I haven't met any of the rest of you.
>
> Quick roll-call: who's already in Oakland or are planning to be there this
> week for ApacheCon?  In particular:
>
>  * ) how many of us will be at Lucene MeetUp tuesday night?
>
>      - Jake Mannix
>      - Grant Ingersoll
>      - (add your name here when you reply?)
>
>  * ) how many of us will be at the Hadoop MeetUp thursday night?
>
>      - Jake Mannix
>      - (add your name here?)
>
>  * ) who would rather get together on Friday night more informally, and
> Isabel can advertise for this in her Friday Mahout talk.
>
>     - +0 from me (I'll go with the majority on this one)
>
>
>  -jake
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
>>
>>  Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we
>>> planning
>>> on having
>>> an informal one sometime?  Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is
>>> Hadoop, we
>>> could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday
>>> night?
>>>
>>> Any interest?
>>>
>>
>> We can talk about Mahout at the Lucene one, but I wouldn't mind some less
>> formal discussion.  We should have a good chunk of Mahout people at AC
>>
>>
>>
>

[Ted Dunning]

+epsilon

I haven't had time to look at the artifact, but I think the inspection
burden should be a (little) bit lower at this point in Mahout's life.

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Sean Owen <srowen@...> wrote:

>
> Is there anything I can help on that front? the artifact looks good.
> Can I take it forward?
>
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.mannix@...>
> wrote:
> > Any other thoughts on getting together?  I've met Grant and I see Ted
> every
> > so often, but I haven't met any of the rest of you.
> >
> > Quick roll-call: who's already in Oakland or are planning to be there
> this
> > week for ApacheCon?  In particular:
> >
> >  * ) how many of us will be at Lucene MeetUp tuesday night?
> >
> >      - Jake Mannix
> >      - Grant Ingersoll
> >      - (add your name here when you reply?)
> >
> >  * ) how many of us will be at the Hadoop MeetUp thursday night?
> >
> >      - Jake Mannix
> >      - (add your name here?)
> >
> >  * ) who would rather get together on Friday night more informally, and
> > Isabel can advertise for this in her Friday Mahout talk.
> >
> >     - +0 from me (I'll go with the majority on this one)
> >
> >
> >  -jake
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Oct 31, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> >>
> >>  Speaking of which, I didn't see a "Mahout meetup" anywhere - are we
> >>> planning
> >>> on having
> >>> an informal one sometime?  Tuesday is the Lucene MeetUp, and Thurs is
> >>> Hadoop, we
> >>> could go out for drinks or something after one of those two, or Friday
> >>> night?
> >>>
> >>> Any interest?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We can talk about Mahout at the Lucene one, but I wouldn't mind some
> less
> >> formal discussion.  We should have a good chunk of Mahout people at AC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

[Isabel Drost-4]

On Monday 02 November 2009 23:22:18 Jake Mannix wrote:
> Quick roll-call: who's already in Oakland or are planning to be there this
> week for ApacheCon?  

Arrived this afternoon.

> In particular:
>
>   * ) how many of us will be at Lucene MeetUp tuesday night?
>
>       - Jake Mannix
>       - Grant Ingersoll
>       - Isabel Drost
>
>   * ) how many of us will be at the Hadoop MeetUp thursday night?
>
>       - Jake Mannix
>       - Isabel Drost

Isabel

--
  |\      _,,,---,,_       Web:   <http://www.isabel-drost.de>
  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_  
 |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
'---''(_/--'  `-'\_) (fL)  IM:  <xmpp://MaineC.@...>

[Grant Ingersoll-6]

On Nov 2, 2009, at 2:25 PM, Sean Owen wrote:

> I would, if I weren't 5000 miles away!
>
> It's of course going to be a good chance to promote and socialize
> Mahout. Since it looks like we're, what, actually done with the 0.2
> release? would be a real shame if you couldn't point the interested at
> a shiny new 0.2 release to dig into.
>
> Is there anything I can help on that front? the artifact looks good.
> Can I take it forward?

Unfortunately, we still need to sign some of the artifacts.   I would  
still encourage everyone to try them out in the meantime.

-Grant

[srowen]

The core artifacts aren't signed, or are you referring to the
ancillary artifacts like Hadoop stuff?

In theory all the signs should have been signed, so if that didn't
work, darn. It sure seems like it should, given that we added the GPG
plugin. I am out of ideas.

If it's just that these ancillary artifacts aren't being signed,
that's not great, but they have never been signed, and they are going
away. I'm weighing that against increasing urgency to not be stuck in
no-man's-land for release -- especially since, if I understand
correctly, we have a release ready to go.

As Ted says, the bar for 0.2 is low, and, if the only issue is
MAHOUT-114 again, I strongly favor releasing it now. Otherwise I think
we're left unclear who will fix what, when, and we can't have the
release just be an unknown.


On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, we still need to sign some of the artifacts.   I would still
> encourage everyone to try them out in the meantime.
>
> -Grant
>

[Grant Ingersoll-6]

On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:17 AM, Sean Owen wrote:

> The core artifacts aren't signed, or are you referring to the
> ancillary artifacts like Hadoop stuff?

Any and all artifacts that we put up under our stuff are our artifacts  
and people need to be able to verify that what we put up is what we  
intended to put up.

>
> In theory all the signs should have been signed, so if that didn't
> work, darn. It sure seems like it should, given that we added the GPG
> plugin. I am out of ideas.

The GPG plugin is not working on the artifacts produced by the deploy  
target for the dependencies.

>
> If it's just that these ancillary artifacts aren't being signed,
> that's not great, but they have never been signed, and they are going
> away. I'm weighing that against increasing urgency to not be stuck in
> no-man's-land for release -- especially since, if I understand
> correctly, we have a release ready to go.
>
> As Ted says, the bar for 0.2 is low,

Unfortunately, when it comes to the legal bits, the bar is not low.  
It needs to be done right.  I will likely hand sign them today or  
tomorrow and then reopen the JIRA issue.

-Grant

[srowen]

Sounds like a way forward indeed.
Is there some legal implication here, what is it?

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, when it comes to the legal bits, the bar is not low.  It
> needs to be done right.  I will likely hand sign them today or tomorrow and
> then reopen the JIRA issue.
>
> -Grant
>

[Grant Ingersoll-6]

On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Sean Owen wrote:

> Sounds like a way forward indeed.
> Is there some legal implication here, what is it?

None that I am aware of.

[srowen]

What were you referring to in your last email then about legal bits? I
am genuinely curious to understand things like that since they are
important.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@...> wrote:
>
> On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:39 AM, Sean Owen wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a way forward indeed.
>> Is there some legal implication here, what is it?
>
> None that I am aware of.
>

[Grant Ingersoll-6]

On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:47 AM, Sean Owen wrote:

> What were you referring to in your last email then about legal bits? I
> am genuinely curious to understand things like that since they are
> important.

Oh, sorry.  Was confused by your confusion!

The relevant line in the prior email was:

"Any and all artifacts that we put up under our stuff are our  
artifacts and people need to be able to verify that what we put up is  
what we intended to put up."

So, those are the legal bits.  People need to be able to trust what we  
put up their.  Sigs and MD5 hashes, etc. help establish that trust.

You can read more about ASF reqs on releases at: http://www.apache.org/dev/#releases