Thanks, Bertrand. My comments are inline.
> I guess this means a new release candidate will be created? Yes, but I want to get more feedback before I roll the next version. > > I had a quick look at > http://people.apache.org/~olga/pig-0.1.0-candidate-1/ and here are my > comments: > > 1) It might be good to include the version number in the > lib/javacc.jar filename, as with the other lib jar files, as > the license for javacc changed to BSD (which is fine) at some > point. Just to make it clear that the version Pig is using is > indeed the BSD-licensed one. I see your point. I am not sure if it is a good idea to rename the jar since it came that way with the javacc distribution I think. If people think it is, I can make the change. > 2) The README.txt should include the incubator disclaimer, > like the one at the end of > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/sling/trunk/README.txt? > view=markup done > > 3) Apache rat [1] reports the following files (along with a > few other irrelevant ones) with missing license headers, > please have a look to see if those can be added without > causing problems: > > !????? ./src/org/apache/pig/impl/logicalLayer/parser/grammar > !????? ./tutotial/data/excite-small.log !????? > ./tutotial/scripts/script1-hadoop.pig > !????? ./tutotial/scripts/script1-local.pig > !????? ./tutotial/scripts/script2-hadoop.pig > !????? ./tutotial/scripts/script2-local.pig All this files are either data as the case with excite-small.log or pig scripts or a grammar file. I don't think we can put license in the data. I could add it to the other files but I saw that some similar Hadoop files did not have license. Do all files need to have it? Thanks, Olga
