On 03/04/2010 12:31 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
On 03/04/2010 05:16 PM, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 17:36 -0500, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
Blah blah blah
I also propose to run the vote until Tue 2 Mar 2010. At that point I
will total the votes.
As of today we have 2 votes to release 0.6rc6.
So the release does not have enough votes as is to be released.
I note that there is concern over the comprehensive inclusion of license
headers in all our files.
My interpretation of the "ASF Source Header and Copyright Notice
Policy" ( http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html ) is that not
having them is not a blocker to a release:
In para "Source File Headers for Code Developed at the ASF" section 2.
It says: "Each source file should include the following license header".
I interpret the use of the word "should" to mean non mandatory, but
strongly recommended.
As a contrast "Applying the Apache License, Version
2.0" ( http://apache.org/dev/apply-license.html ) says "Apache projects
MUST include correct NOTICE documents in every distribution."
RFC 2119 (which is where I go for the meaning of these words in
technical requirements) says of "should" that there "may exist valid
reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item".
On the basis of your argument and citations above, I am happy to vote
+1 on this candidate. My only concern was the RAT issues, everything
else looked good.
ack, I was assuming another build, but based on that +1.
Carl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
