+1 for the release. The files in question are not really "source" files. They are just project files for an IDE.
Rajith. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Andrew Stitcher <[email protected]> wrote: > 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:[email protected] > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
