+1(binding), i checked :
- incubating in name
- Signatures and hashed good
- DISCLAIMER exists
- LICENSE is fine
- NOTICE is fine
- source file have ASF headers
- No unexpected binary files
Regards
Liang
Nirojan Selvanathan wrote
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a call for
+1 binding
Glad to see the potential dependency license issue fixed.
Good luck.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
Sheng Wu 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:33写道：
> Hi Yuansheng
>
> Thanks for fixing this quickly.
>
> Sheng Wu 吴晟
> Twitter, wusheng1108
>
>
> YuanSheng Wang 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:22写道：
>
>> Many
Hi Yuansheng
Thanks for fixing this quickly.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
YuanSheng Wang 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:22写道：
> Many thx for you. I have updated the two repositories `lua-resty-radixtree`
> and `jsonschema`.
>
> radixtree v1.9: Apache 2.0 License
> jsonschema 0.8: MIT license
>
> ^_^
Many thx for you. I have updated the two repositories `lua-resty-radixtree`
and `jsonschema`.
radixtree v1.9: Apache 2.0 License
jsonschema 0.8: MIT license
^_^
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 4:16 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I talked with the people of api7, they have updated the license,
Hi,
> I talked with the people of api7, they have updated the license, the GPL
> part has been removed. It should be better now.
Thanks for doing that, much appreciated.
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Hi Justin
I talked with the people of api7, they have updated the license, the GPL
part has been removed.
It should be better now.
Sheng Wu 吴晟
Twitter, wusheng1108
Justin Mclean 于2020年6月28日周日 下午4:04写道：
> Hi,
>
> > These two dependencies are designed and implemented specifically for
> Apache
Hi,
> These two dependencies are designed and implemented specifically for Apache
> APISIX,
> and will always keep the Apache 2.0 license for Apache APISIX.
> At the same time, we don't want just use these two dependencies instead of
> Apache APISIX as a whole,
> so we've set up a dual licenses.
Hi,
> The name on Pipy could be https://pypi.org/project/apache- to
> keep consistent with other platforms.
>
> The name on NPM has the same issue.
As long as it clear it’s an Apache project (for releases made by the PPMC) then
any similar variations is fine.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi all,
We are glad to announce the release of Apache DolphinScheduler(incubating)
1.3.0. Once again I would like to express my thanks to your help.
Dolphin Scheduler is a distributed and easy-to-expand visual DAG workflow
scheduling system,
dedicated to solving the complex dependencies in data
Hi,
> The name on Pipy could be https://pypi.org/project/apache- to
keep consistent with other platforms.
Sorry I mean, to keep consistent with current released projects [1].
[1] https://pypi.org/search/?q=apache
Best,
---
Xiangdong Huang
School of Software,
Hi Justin,
The name on Pipy could be https://pypi.org/project/apache- to
keep consistent with other platforms.
The name on NPM has the same issue.
Best,
---
Xiangdong Huang
School of Software, Tsinghua University
黄向东
清华大学 软件学院
Justin Mclean 于2020年6月28日周日
Hi,
The vote to release Apache IoTDB (incubating) 0.10.0 has passed with 4 +1
binding votes.
binding votes:
- Justin Mclean
- Julian Feinauer,
- Christofer Dutz,
- Willem Jiang,
Vote thread:
Ming Wen 于2020年6月28日周日 下午2:36写道：
> > "This project is dual licensed under the Apache 2.0 and AGPL licenses：
> > 1. If used with Apache APISIX, the license is Apache License 2.0;
> > 2. otherwise the license is AGPL.”
> > How did this come about? I hav a possible concern about this but not sure
>
+1 （binding)
Here are my checks,
1. Signature and Hashed are good.
2. Release commit and Tag are good.
3. LICENSE and NOTICE files are good for me.
4. I can build the binary from the Source release kit.
5. DISCLAIMER is included.
Willem Jiang
Twitter: willemjiang
Weibo: 姜宁willem
On Wed, Jun
> "This project is dual licensed under the Apache 2.0 and AGPL licenses：
> 1. If used with Apache APISIX, the license is Apache License 2.0;
> 2. otherwise the license is AGPL.”
> How did this come about? I hav a possible concern about this but not sure
if it’s an issue or not.
These two
Hi,
> I have a question regarding the nature of the document and the vote. I see
> that the title for this document is "Distribution Guidelines". Do you
> intend to have this document considered as a distribution policy?
Yes it’s policy but podlings can ask for exceptions or come up with their
16 matches
Mail list logo
