Do you guys intend to release convenience binaries in addition to the initial source release? If so, I think you'll have to include a license/notice that includes the third party dependencies.
Also, license should be used to record third-party licensed works that are included in the source distribution. The bit packing code should be in there, rather than in notice. Notice is for required third-party notices and isn't the file where third-party licensing information should be accumulated. rb On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we are ready to make a release once PARQUET-702 is merged. Is > there any more licensing / NOTICE review work to do? > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Deepak Majeti <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I would like to get PARQUET-764 and PARQUET-702 into the release as > > well. Both of them belong to me. > > I plan to finish PARQUET-702 by Monday. > > If someone can take over PARQUET-764, it will be easier. > > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Uwe Korn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> given that we have reached a point parquet-cpp is working quite nicely > and a > >> minimal set of features is implemented, I would like to continue to > make a > >> release in the next days. I would wait for PARQUET-726 [1] to be merged > and > >> then setup the release scripts and ask for a vote. > >> > >> Is there anything else someone wants to get in before the initial > release? > >> > >> Uwe > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/apache/parquet-cpp/pull/184 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > regards, > > Deepak Majeti > -- Ryan Blue Software Engineer Netflix
