On 03/02/2010 09:31 AM, Robbie Gemmell wrote:
I believe this means we must fix these and roll another RC before we
can proceed with a vote, correct?
I believe we have to fix the missing license on the source code at a
minimum. I have checked in that change as r917988.
On the .csproj files, I would guess that they probably do need a
licence, and if most of them already include it then it seems sensible
to do the rest and finish the job.
Seems sensible. Is someone willing to volunteer to do that? Following
Rajiths comments I'm not sure what the right approach is. There are
certainly other csproj files with the license in at the top of the file
- do these cause problems for MSVC?
Robbie
On 26 February 2010 15:25, Gordon Sim<g...@redhat.com> wrote:
<snip>
It looks fine to me (c++ tests and python tests against the c++ broker run,
python management tools run ok). Running RAT against it also looks ok except
for ruby/ext/sasl/extconf.rb. That file is tiny, but it is code and it
doesn't have the license at the top.
(There are some csproj files in the 0-10 dotnet client that also don't have
this, e.g. dotnet/client-010/client/Client.csproj, but these may not be
required?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
