I think that's probably fine. So +1 for the release.
Alan. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:00 AM Owen O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan, > Can we fix it after the release? > > Thanks, > Owen > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 1:56 PM Alan Gates <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm not sure about the license file in this release. This release > includes > > zlib, snappy, gmock, protobuf, and lz4 code, all of which have MIT or BSD > > licenses. gmock and lz4 have LICENSE files down with the code, zlib, > > snappy, and protobuf have license headers in their files but I couldn't > > find any explicit LICENSE files. Aren't all of these license supposed to > > be referenced in the top LICENSE file, and ideally placed together > > somewhere where an interested user can easily find them? > > > > Other than that, all looks good. I checked the signature and hash, did a > > build on centos7, looked for any wayward files in the tarball. > > > > Alan. > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 2:02 PM Owen O'Malley <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > All, > > > There has been an ask for having ORC-231 backported into ORC 1.4. > > > ORC-231 is an easy patch, so this should be pretty safe. There were > some > > > lingering patches that went on to branch-1.4 after 1.4.4 so we'll get > > those > > > too. > > > > > > Should we release the following artifacts as ORC 1.4.5? > > > > > > tar: http://home.apache.org/~omalley/orc-1.4.5/ > > > tag: https://github.com/apache/orc/releases/tag/release-1.4.5rc0 > > > jiras: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ORC/fixforversion/12345479 > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > >
