Will do. A.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> wrote: > I ran through basic checks on the source packages (checksums, > signatures, license headers, included binary files, LICENSE, NOTICE, > DISCLAIMER), and generally they look good. In addition to the points > made on > https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues, > the only thing I would add is that RAT flags up lots of missing > license headers. Many of them are JSON which can be excluded since > JSON doesn't support comments (as discussed above), or tests, but the > META-INF/services, YAML, XML, and properties files should have license > headers added for RC3 if possible. > > Cheers, > Tom > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: > > David, have you had a chance to take a look at my comments about the > > json stuff? http://markmail.org/message/pk7efsmc6ewmake7 > > > > I've also noted my doubts on the wiki so the conclusions for each one > > can be reflected there. > > > > On 5 June 2013 23:07, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dealt with for RC3, and noted on > >> https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues > >> > >> A. > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > I'm extending the vote another 24 hours for our mentors to respond. > >>> > > >>> > A. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> jclouds-karaf has both LICENSE and LICENSE.txt and I'd argue that > >>> LICENSE.txt should be purged. Aside from that it looks in good shape. > >>> > >>> --David > >>> >
