+1 Thanks, Forrest ! 2012/7/6 Yi Xiao <[email protected]>
> the build is ok, Signature/checksum looks good, > +1 > > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Rex Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1, All looked good to me, great to see 3.0!! Thanks Forrest! >> >> -Rex >> >> >> 2012/7/6 Forrest Xia <[email protected]> >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Forrest Xia wrote: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source. >>>> I've been telling people for years that these should apply to what is >>>> actually in the source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for >>>> the binary distros. For instance they point to files in the repository >>>> folder which only exists in the binary distro. >>>> > >>>> > That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure >>>> which style I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more >>>> accurate, but they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that >>>> license/notice in jar files should be source licenses… >>>> > >>>> > In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what >>>> applies to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to >>>> easily sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is… >>>> > Kevan, your vote? >>>> >>>> Was waiting for build to finish. Given the US holidays, etc. I'd give >>>> this a few more days to gather additional votes… >>>> >>> OK, that's fine to wait a couple days for this vote. >>> >>>> >>>> --kevan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Regards, Forrest >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Lei Wang (Rex) >> rwonly AT apache.org >> > > > > -- > Best regards! > > > John Xiao > > -- Ivan
