Ahh good call! I did the same thing. I was saying as in “I like it” not to approve any release. Sorry for the confusion!
Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 30, 2023, at 6:46 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
