Considering this vote just started and a wrong license could be a threat for our downstream users, I would suggest to start a new round of voting.
But I agree that it isn’t new, so I’m not strong in this. I’d change my vote into +0 non-binding and leave this for you to decide. On Fri, Sep 11, 2026, at 02:42, Andrew Lamb wrote: > Hi Xuanwo, > > Thank you very much. I did some research[1] and I think that file has had a > missing header line for more than 3 years. We should definitely fix this (PR > to do so here[2]) but since it isn't a regression, and we have released many > versions with this defect already, do you still think we need to create a new > RC and restart voting, or can it wait until the next release? > > Andrew > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs-object-store/issues/853 > [2]: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs-object-store/pull/854 > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 1:20 PM Xuanwo <[email protected]> wrote: >> -1 (non-binding) >> >> Thanks Andrew for preparing the release. >> >> The ASF license header in src/client/s3.rs is missing its >> first line: >> >> // Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one >> >> The file starts with "// or more contributor license >> agreements..." instead. This is present in both the source >> archive and v0.14.2-rc1. >> >> Could we restore the complete header and cut a new RC? >> >> Otherwise, SHA-256, SHA-512, the signature, and the complete >> source comparison against the tag passed. On Linux x86_64, >> cargo build, cargo test --all --all-features, and >> cargo publish --dry-run all passed. >> >> Cloud-backend integration tests were not exercised. >> >> Thanks, >> Xuanwo Xuanwo https://xuanwo.io/
