Guys, This vote has been open for a little while now.
What should we do about it? Thanks, Pierre-Arnaud On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Pierre-Arnaud Marcelot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 7:07 PM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > As (in my experience) most process bits of ASF stuff any docs you may > > find are generally wrong and if you ask any collection of old-timers you get > > a different answer from each. However there's been a lot of discussion on > > legal-discuss recently and after a lot of prodding there seems to be > > consensus that: > > - all distribution units need LICENSE and NOTICE files > > - expected svn checkout units form a "distribution" so need to include > > LICENSE and NOTICE files > > - all other LICENSE and NOTICE files can be generated or from svn > > - each LICENSE and NOTICE file refers only to the contents of the > > distribution unit, not anything such as required dependencies that might be > > needed to use it. > > > > Thanks. > We comply with all these rules except for the inclusion of the LICENSE and > NOTICE files at the SVN checkout root. > I'm going to add them. > > > > > .../trunk and ..../branches/1.1.0 since those are what we expect people > > to check out if they want to build it themselves. > > > > Ok, I'm going to add them in both locations. > > > I haven't had time to look at this branch. Is it built with maven? I'm > > not sure if I'll have time to look soon. If you guys are confident that all > > the artifacts have appropriate legal files and there are no snapshots in any > > maven build (if used) I'm happy to change to +0. > > > > Yeah, It is built with Maven. Here are the instructions to build Studio: > http://directory.apache.org/studio/building.html > > Regards, > Pierre-Arnaud >
