On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 19:15 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > I didn't vote as I didn't (and still don't) think it could/should be released > without updating at least the ruby source file licence (as Gordon already did > a couple of days ago). As you note, it's been several weeks, so I don't think > that taking another few days at this point is of concern.
You could at least vote against the release if you feel that way. Not voting seems like apathy. If your vote is matched with enough other people with a similar view then the release vote will fail. Your comment about taking more time misses the point: I don't want to spend any more time on making vanishingly small changes to this release. If you do then I will happily relinquish the 0.6 release manager role. > > It isn't hard to find quotes on the Apache site that firmly lean the other > way on this, eg: > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#license > > "Which Files Must Contain An ASF License Text? > > Every source file must contain the appropriate ASF License text." That's interesting, it seems they have contradictory information on the site. Or at least ambiguous information. Andrew --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscr...@qpid.apache.org
