> Thanks for the explanation. But if the user want to change the theme he
> still need to download the theme file himself, even he download the src
> distribution. Am I right?
Yes. Not only the theme, there are more issues if considering the user
convenience, including but not limited to the map
Thanks for the explanation. But if the user want to change the theme he
still need to download the theme file himself, even he download the src
distribution. Am I right?
I think we need to provide more convenience distribution in next release.
Here is my +1 vote.
BTW, if you want to keep using
Hi -
For this first release I am switching to VOTE +1 since as Justin writes this is
a documentation issue Cn permissive licenses.
However, it needs to be clearly explained so that users of ECharts can clearly
understand all of the implications of using it. The ECharts podling and mentors
--
Su Shuang (100pah)
--
2018-06-01 1:07 GMT+08:00 Dave Fisher :
> Hi -
>
> I’m VOTING +0.
>
> (1) I am rather confused by this D3 license. For example:
>
> src/chart/tree/layoutHelper.js
> /*
> * Licensed to the Apache Software
>
> The whole file is based on the tree layout of D3
Sorry about missing the reference.
https://github.com/d3/d3-hierarchy/blob/44ba491e8c6d5b8af21280f6507d4d372bc4272d/src/tree.js
Yi Shen 于2018年6月1日周五 下午3:40写道：
> Hi Dave:
>
> Without deep analysis I have no idea what parts are D3. If this
Hi Dave:
Without deep analysis I have no idea what parts are D3. If this whole file
> is based on D3 then in my opinion this whole source file needs to be BSD-3
> clause licensed.
>
> I would change my VOTE to +1 if there is a good explanation.
>
The whole file is based on the tree layout of D3.
Hi -
I’m VOTING +0.
(1) I am rather confused by this D3 license. For example:
src/chart/tree/layoutHelper.js
/*
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
* or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
* distributed with this work for additional information
*
Hi,
> sankeyLayout.js is mainly an improved implementation of the original d3
> sankey layout algorithm. We will add sankeyLayout.js to the list of files
> embed [d3.js](https://github.com/d3/d3) BSD 3-Clause in the LICENSE if
> needed.
Seems like it should be to me. Any modification of code are
Thanks Justin!
> LICENSE is probably missing:
> - MIT licensed sankey layout [1] in [2][3]
> - 2 clause BSD Heatmap layer [4] in [5]
I will try to explain these two concerns about LICENSE.
sankeyLayout.js is mainly an improved implementation of the original d3
sankey layout algorithm. We will
My vote is +1 binding.
But when I check the source file with github repo[1]. I found there are
> some directories are missed.
> I guess we can skip the benchmark, tests, but I'm not sure for the theme
> directory. Can you explain it?
> We need to make sure we can build the full function binary
Hi
I just tried to build the source according to the instruction in the mail,
it works.
But when I check the source file with github repo[1]. I found there are
some directories are missed.
I guess we can skip the benchmark, tests, but I'm not sure for the theme
directory. Can you explain it?
We
Hi,
+1 binding
I checked:
- incubating in name
- signatures and hashes good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE is probably missing a few things (see below)
- NOTICE is good
- No binary files in release
- All source files have ASF headers
LICENSE is probably missing:
- MIT licensed sankey layout [1]
Ty. I am +1 binding on rc4
On Wed, May 30, 2018, 13:11 SHUANG SU wrote:
> > When it is released, my point is that the rc4 is removed so some of ypur
> > text says you are releasing 4.1.0rc4. I would have it say release 4.1.0
> > and here is release candidate 4.
>
> Yes, it is the vote for the
> When it is released, my point is that the rc4 is removed so some of ypur
> text says you are releasing 4.1.0rc4. I would have it say release 4.1.0
> and here is release candidate 4.
Yes, it is the vote for the release of 4.1.0, release candidate 4. I should
have made it clearly
in text.
>
Hi,
> Firstly, I called a vote for 4.1.0.rc3 on "general@incubator.apache.org",
> and then received some comments.
> Then, I fixed the artifact according to those comments, and called a vote
> for 4.1.0.rc4 on "d...@echarts.apache.org",
> and then the vote passed.
> Then, I am calling a vote for
You are likely correct. Just a lot of rcs and I thought you would have
canceled some of the votes.
You don't have to finish the votes if you know you aren't going to release
it. And by an rc4 with a minor change like removing files, you could ask
your group how they feel about the voting
Kevin,
Sorry, I am being confused with the voting progress:
Firstly, I called a vote for 4.1.0.rc3 on "general@incubator.apache.org",
and then received some comments.
Then, I fixed the artifact according to those comments, and called a vote
for 4.1.0.rc4 on "d...@echarts.apache.org",
and then
Su, I would think you would remove the rc4 (release candidate) and it would
be released as 4.1.0. Also, I think your vote already passed so I'm not
sure why you need another round of votes. Am I confused?
--
Kevin A. McGrail
VP Fundraising, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache
18 matches
Mail list logo
