I still have one discussion in mind with the replacing of License Headers in 
files as part of the Patch process. I guess this isn't resolved yet. I 
responded more general as the other responses seemed to refer to someone 
continuously doing something :-)


Chris

________________________________
Von: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. September 2016 10:30:00
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [DRAFT] Apache FlexJS 0.7.0 and Apache Flex FalconJX 0.7.0 Released

I’m confused about which issue you are referring to.

Before the release was cut he brought up some issues related to code which 
might have not have compatible licensing, We acted on that pretty much 
immediately.

During the release process, he brought up the fact that the full MIT license 
wording was not included, and we did not reach a consensus on whether that’s an 
issue. We did have enough PMC members agree that it’s at the least not a 
release-blocker. We should come to a consensus on what to do about that before 
our next release.

Justin now brought up an issue with how artifacts are being pushed to npm. I 
don’t understand what the issue could be. If Justin could clarify and propose 
an alternative, we might be able to improve things for the next release.

Am I missing something?

On Sep 15, 2016, at 10:34 AM, Christofer Dutz <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:

> Justin did bring up the issue. He even brought it when we were first 
> discussing starting a release. The discussion sort of dried out without a 
> resolution, then when it came to the release, he mentioned it again. But 
> again no action was taken. So I too see a complaint about PMCs coming up with 
> such stuff in the last minute as not valid.

Reply via email to