Aldrin, Sounds perfect. What about the other superseded ones?
Cheers On 23 Sep 2016 22:24, "Aldrin Piri" <[email protected]> wrote: > I am in favor of the first two. > > As far as #239, I think there was a lot of good work and effort that went > into it and it just needs a license friendly home and/or optional build > process. With some of the mentioned efforts that would allow us to to > externalize items from Apache directly such as the extension registry and > some of the things that have been done to provide vendor specific NiFi > bundles, could allow for this to find a home in some fashion. To that end, > I would prefer to keep it around until we can find a way to capture the > effort in both the development and review processes. > > As a side note to the approach, I would opt for a 'git commit --allow-empty > -m <message>' in lieu of making superficial changes. This would allow you > to create your message without any noise beyond what is actually being > attempted. > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Team, > > > > Would any of you oppose if I push a "white space" commit to close the > > following stalled PRs > > > > I propose closing the following PRs > > > > #769 - not truly a PR > > #595 - not truly a PR > > #239 - licensing issues (Amazon license) prevent the code from being > > merged. > > > > There are other commits that IMNSHO seem to been addressed by other > commits > > but at this stage I prefer leaving them as they are. > > > > If you agree, the commit with the closure can be merged by committing the > > following PR > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/nifi/pull/1054 > > > > > > Cheers > > >
