Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I have now, days later, Reviewed this Thread and Commit to a veto of the whole debate, Can't agree That it is Rewarding for anyone... ;-) On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Todd Lipcon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > > > Todd: as

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

> Bundled with the software (according to the license file) is Activiti which is Apache licensed and has a notice file [1] (although most of this content shouldn't actually be in license). As per [2] this needs to be looked at and parts added to the Tinkerpop NOTICE file. However I can’t even

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

HI, > Maybe we did something wrong here, but those classes are here: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/structure/io/graphml/GraphMLWriterHelper.java > > The are basically just recreated as inner classes in that

Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > I have now, days later, Reviewed this Thread and Commit to a veto of the > RTC > whole debate, Can't agree That it is Rewarding for anyone... ;-) > CTR ... I saw what you did there :-)

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - release files include incubating in the name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE good (although no need to list Apache licensed software) - NOTICE has an issue (see below) - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binaries in source