sebb wrote: > On 11/04/2008, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> sebb wrote: >> > On 10/04/2008, Michael Baessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The Apache UIMA committers ask the Apache Incubator PMC for permission >> to publish a new bug fix >> >> release of Apache UIMA version 2.2.2. This release contains bug fixes >> of for release version 2.2.1 >> >> that was published in December 2007. For details about the fixes, >> please have a look at the release >> >> notes. >> >> >> >> We had a vote on uima-dev that resulted in 6 binding +1s >> >> (all the committers) and no 0s or -1s. The vote thread >> >> is here: >> >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-uima-dev/200804.mbox/[EMAIL >> PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> Please review the release candidate here: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~mbaessler/uimaj-2.2.2/05/ >> >> >> >> There are subdirectories like: >> >> /bin - contains the binary distribution files >> >> /src - contains the source distribution files >> >> /rat - contains the RAT reports (using RAT 0.5.1) with some comments >> > >> > Not sure I agree that RELEASE_NOTES don't require an AL header. >> > It would not do any harm to add the header. >> > >> >> Most parts of the RELEASE_NOTES are generated using JIRA, so I thought we >> can apply the rule > > Which rule?
What files in an Apache release do not require a license header? A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file does not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the file's creativity, add the license header to the file. > >> mentioned on at http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html. But if you >> think it would be better to >> have one, we will add a header next time. Hope that this is not a release >> stopper. >> > -- Michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
