On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
>>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>>> not do so and re-roll?
>>
>> I'd just leave that up to the releas
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
>> not do so and re-roll?
>
> I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
>
> There's no such thing as a perf
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb wrote:
> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
> not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software
has errors), so unless t
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wrote:
> On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>> wrote:
>>>
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warran
>> One "shortcut" that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the p
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
This is one of th
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
>> wrote:
>>
>> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
>> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 re
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
To users no, to redistributors yes.
Section 4 of ALv2 makes the "attribution notices contained within" the
NOTICE file mandatory for any downstream distribution. Interpre
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb wrote:
> Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
>
> Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Depends but potentially in some cases, yes.
Robert
-
To unsub
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
>
> It think it *is* a requirement, according to
> http:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
> release, but the next release should fix that.
Agreed.
For some background: Keeping the NOTICE file as lean as possible
(given constraints from upstream li
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
>
> ... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
> about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
>
> It think it *is* a requirement, according to
> http://apac
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
to *re
13 matches
Mail list logo
