Oops, I should know better than to write ‘+1’ in a vote thread. It created confusion. I should have said ‘I agree with Bertil. We do not need to remove the Appendix in order to comply with ASF licensing policy.’
My vote for this RC remains -1 (binding). Per release voting policy, you can override my vote if you have 3 more +1 votes than -1 votes. However, my recommendation is that you fix the issues that Calvin noted in the LICENSE file of the binary distribution and make a new RC. Julian > On Aug 30, 2023, at 2:26 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Haha, I’m so relieved. > >> On 30 Aug 2023, at 23:19, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> +1 Cancel the emergency appendectomy. >> >>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks a lot for looking at this. I think I now recall why I didn’t remove >>> the Appendix when the issue was first reported. The license itself refers >>> to the appendix when it defines “Work”: >>> >>> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or >>> Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a >>> copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work >>> (an example is provided in the Appendix below). >>> >>> I feel that we should remove this last parenthesis for the license to make >>> sense without the Appendix, but I'd prefer not to bother any lawyers ;-) If >>> you don't mind, I'd rather keep it. >>> >>>> On 30 Aug 2023, at 20:02, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is the definitive answer: >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-346. My reading is that it is >>>> OK to include or exclude the appendix. >>>> >>>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 6:38 AM, Calvin Kirs <k...@apache.org >>>>> <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:17 PM Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com><mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello Calvin, >>>>>> Hello Julian, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your reviews and for taking the time to list these points. >>>>>> You will find my comments below. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. The binary version needs to include the license of all components >>>>>>> required for compilation. If it is a standard AL2, it can be ignored. >>>>>>> You can refer to [1] >>>>>>> 2. The binary version of NOTICE needs to include the licenses of all >>>>>>> dependent third-party components (AFAIK, this is only required when >>>>>>> the license of the dependencies is AL2), you can refer to [2] >>>>>> >>>>>> We do have a THIRD-PARTY file at the root of the binary distribution >>>>>> that lists the licenses of the components required for compilation and >>>>>> at runtime. We don’t ignore AL2 licences in order to be exhaustive and >>>>>> to keep the build process simple. We released version 0.7.1 believing >>>>>> this was sufficient to comply with this requirement. What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> What I mean is all the contents of its license file (if it is standard >>>>> AL2, you don't need to include it) and list them according to your >>>>> needs. >>>>> >>>>> The same goes for NOTICE files. If these components use the AL2 >>>>> protocol and include NOTICE, then you need to include these in the >>>>> NOTICE file in the root directory. >>>>> I think Josh is familiar with this. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. The LICENSE file of the binary version needs to declare which >>>>>>> version of the source code your binary version is based on. You can >>>>>>> refer to [3] >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, we shall address this. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Source package: >>>>>>> 1. For the LICENSE file in the source code package, I don't know which >>>>>>> specific codes are dependent on the source code, so I can't check >>>>>>> whether it is correct or not. I suggest that we list the specific >>>>>>> modifications in the license. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m worried that this listing won’t survive a refactoring. The current >>>>>> approach is to include a clear reference to the original project in the >>>>>> javadoc. Here is an exemple: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/blob/a62a1a38f809134e3bf4c69fd192523877babd7e/baremaps-core/src/main/java/org/apache/baremaps/stream/BufferedSpliterator.java#L28 >>>>>> >>>>>> As a result searching for the names listed in the LICENSE file in the >>>>>> codebase quickly returns the adapted files. For instance, searching for >>>>>> OSMPBF will return the osmformat.proto file. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. The license of logo.svg is Font Awesome Free License. I see that >>>>>>> Font Awesome Free is free, open source, and GPL friendly. You can use >>>>>>> it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really almost >>>>>>> whatever you want. >>>>>>> This is not allowed to be added to ASF projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good catch, we need to address this and find a replacement for this icon. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/trunk/licenses-binary >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/NOTICE-binary >>>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/LICENSE-binary >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:10 AM Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com >>>>>>> <mailto:jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -1 (binding) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Downloaded, checked src-tar contents against git tag [1], checked >>>>>>>> LICENSE/NOTICE/README/DISCLAIMER [2], checked signatures/hashes[3], >>>>>>>> checked for binaries in src-tar, compiled using OpenJDK 17 and Maven >>>>>>>> 3.8.1, ran rat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everything that I checked looks good. But I’m voting -1 because of the >>>>>>>> binary licensing issues that Calvin reported. Let’s get those issues >>>>>>>> fixed and do another RC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By the way. I think we should keep the voting period to 3 days (or 4 >>>>>>>> days over a weekend). Even though votes may sometimes take a long >>>>>>>> time, the voters SHOULD try to vote promptly. If there is a serious >>>>>>>> issue, we would like to discover it quickly and move to the next RC in >>>>>>>> a tempo of days rather than weeks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for clarifying this point. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Julian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] Git and src-tar mostly match: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> $ diff -r . /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/ >>>>>>>> Only in /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-cli/src: >>>>>>>> test >>>>>>>> Only in /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-ogcapi: >>>>>>>> target >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: assets >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: declaration.d.ts >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: .gitignore >>>>>>>> Only in /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-renderer: >>>>>>>> node_modules >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: package.json >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: package-lock.json >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: .prettierignore >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: .prettierrc.json >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: README.md >>>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: tsconfig.json >>>>>>>> Only in >>>>>>>> /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-server/src/main/resources: >>>>>>>> maputnik >>>>>>>> Only in .: basemap >>>>>>>> Only in .: examples >>>>>>>> Only in .: .git >>>>>>>> Only in .: .github >>>>>>>> Only in .: .gitignore >>>>>>>> Only in .: .min >>>>>>>> Only in .: mvnw >>>>>>>> Only in .: mvnw.cmd >>>>>>>> diff -r ./README /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/README >>>>>>>> 1c1 >>>>>>>> < # Apache Baremaps (incubating) ${project.version} >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> # Apache Baremaps (incubating) 0.7.2 >>>>>>>> diff -r ./scripts/generate-artifacts.sh >>>>>>>> /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/scripts/generate-artifacts.sh >>>>>>>> 22c22 >>>>>>>> < version=$(./mvnw -q -Dexec.executable=echo >>>>>>>> -Dexec.args='${project.version}' --non-recursive exec:exec) >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> version=$(./mvnw -q -Dexec.executable=echo -Dexec.args='0.7.2' >>>>>>>>> --non-recursive exec:exec) >>>>>>>> 35c35 >>>>>>>> < for artifact in ./baremaps-$version-incubating-*; do >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> for artifact in ./apache-baremaps-$version-incubating-*; do >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any reason not to include .github/, .gitignore, examples, basemap, and >>>>>>>> the various files in baremaps-renderer ? >>>>>> >>>>>> We use the baremaps-renderer solely to perform integration tests on the >>>>>> basemap before making significant changes to the style. I’m not sure if >>>>>> it makes sense to include it in the release. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> [2] In LICENSE, you should remove the "APPENDIX: How to apply the >>>>>>>> Apache License to your work” section. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for that, I believe you already mentioned this point in a previous >>>>>> review. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> [3] I received the same error as Calvin did: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>>" [unknown]. >>>>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! >>>>>>>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the >>>>>>>> owner. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This error can be fixed by Bertil getting his key signed by someone in >>>>>>>> our web of trust. This can be done after release, but let’s get it >>>>>>>> done. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be great if someone could guide me in this process. I believe >>>>>> Bertrand could help as we meet in person from time to time. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Bertil >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2023, at 12:02 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello Calvin, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would be great if you can list a few actionable items regarding >>>>>>>>> licensing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/issues/492 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did a pass on almost everything before joining the incubator, and >>>>>>>>> had to rewrite or find alternatives to all the problematic GPL >>>>>>>>> dependencies. A second pass made after joining the incubator revealed >>>>>>>>> a few additional issues, but I think we are close from being >>>>>>>>> compliant. In my opinion, the main issue is related to datasets (e.g. >>>>>>>>> openstreetmap files) used in the tests. We added the DISCLAIMER-WIP >>>>>>>>> to acknowledge these issues in the src and binary distributions >>>>>>>>> without blocking the release process. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bertil >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 29 Aug 2023, at 18:12, Josh Fischer <j...@joshfischer.io >>>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@joshfischer.io>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Calvin, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You made me think of a license question. With Heron, we kept a >>>>>>>>>> separate copy of all the licenses that were not ALV2 [1]. Is this >>>>>>>>>> something that needs to be done for Baremaps? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/tree/master/licenses >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Josh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Calvin Kirs <k...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'll find time tomorrow to list specific checks. >>>>>>>>>>> BTW, we cannot fully rely on rat to indicate whether the license is >>>>>>>>>>> compliant. >>>>>>>>>>> In addition, regarding the modification of source code dependencies, >>>>>>>>>>> we'd better list the specific files in the LICENSE file, otherwise >>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>> is difficult for us to judge whether this part is compliant. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:31 PM Calvin Kirs <k...@apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:k...@apache.org><mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:39 PM Josh Fischer <j...@joshfischer.io >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@joshfischer.io>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right now I’m 0. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve not run across this before, I’m not sure if it’s an issue >>>>>>>>>>>>> for the release. See gpg output below about the key not being >>>>>>>>>>>>> certified. This is the reason my vote is 0 at the moment. >>>>>>>>>>>>> gpg --verify $FILE.asc $FILE >>>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: Signature made Thu Aug 24 07:11:17 2023 CDT >>>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: using RSA key >>>>>>>>>>>>> 16D7A0B27D5ADD52BD57932971751399FB39CB84 >>>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>>" [unknown] >>>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> don't worry, it's ok. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I checked: >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Downloaded; checked hashes/signatures; checked LICENSE, NOTICE, >>>>>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER-WIP; compiled and ran tests on OSX, OpenJDK 17, Maven >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.8.4. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Rat check showed 1441 unapproved licenses. However, since we >>>>>>>>>>>>> are a WIP and I think this issue is known, so we are good. >>>>>>>>>>>>> - I tried to run the example from the tar.gz binary, but the >>>>>>>>>>>>> website seems to refer to the repo - not a release. As an >>>>>>>>>>>>> example, the openStreet Map example wouldn’t work with one of our >>>>>>>>>>>>> binary releases. This isn’t a blocker by any means, just a >>>>>>>>>>>>> developer experience idea that I thought about while checking the >>>>>>>>>>>>> release. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> $ cd examples/openstreetmap >>>>>>>>>>>>> $ baremaps workflow execute --file workflow.json >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the “examples” folder wasn’t in the binary release I >>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn’t sure how to run the example. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Josh and Julian. There is no hurry, especially if we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can increase the duration of the vote. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As we all have busy schedule, I will probably extend future >>>>>>>>>>>>>> release votes to one week in the future. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertil >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2023, at 19:07, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What Josh said. I’ll review & vote today. Apologies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2023, at 7:42 AM, Josh Fischer <j...@joshfischer.io >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@joshfischer.io>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I apologize for my absence. I will spend some time looking at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the next 24 hours. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the fun and challenging parts of working >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the incubator. I’ve had votes go over two weeks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before. Our best bet is to get as many binding (preferably 3) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> votes on the dev@baremaps list. It’s often harder to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> votes on general@a.o <mailto:general@a.o> <mailto:general@a.o>. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s wait a few more days to get binding votes. Open-source >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moves at the speed of open-source, fun! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2023, at 9:10 AM, Bertil Chapuis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <bchap...@gmail.com <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don’t have enough vote for publishing our release. Can we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extend the deadline or should we start a new vote? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that some projects, such as Apache Pekko, ask the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator mailing-list to vote for their releases. Should we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to do the same? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertil >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2023, at 14:52, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Following our online release party (thank you Leonard and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perdjesk), we have created a build for Apache Baremaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) 0.7.2, release candidate 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can read the release notes here: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/releases/tag/v0.7.2-rc1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit to be voted upon: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/tree/v0.7.2-rc1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its hash is e917d5b02fdb64c3f715afd449bb1fe9ca5c2f58. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its tag is v0.7.2-rc1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The artifacts to be voted on are located here: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/baremaps/0.7.2-rc1/ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The hashes of the artifacts are as follows: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d910b50ebed4200d0ef6f0c1ee3e4db0cd95ea005fe54fca66dfc4ec4dca73e96edc8913654c85c73539d6a9d27481157fea9f456a9f3aa451c178a811a89ea0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src.tar.gz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fda00056b9785bbbb7f966e92cf7e118071f5b6d44f9652176a4626cec38c5b0738933b24e23efef423eafba2111bc6a22e6f00a67fda2f10b0011f9c22f3208 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-bin.tar.gz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/bchapuis.asc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/baremaps/KEYS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The README file for the src distribution contains >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions for building and testing the release. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Baremaps >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0.7.2. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of at least three +1 PMC votes are cast. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Baremaps <version> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my vote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding): I checked the signatures and the checksums; I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built the project from its sources; and checked the binary >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertil Chapuis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes！ >>>>>>>>>>>> CalvinKirs >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes！ >>>>>>>>>>> CalvinKirs >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best wishes！ >>>>>>> CalvinKirs >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best wishes！ >>>>> CalvinKirs >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org >>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org> >>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
