On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Kevin Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > That looks consistent with what I've been putting on the Ruby files. > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Andrew McGeachie <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I'm happy to resubmit a patch with agreed-upon wording. This what we want? >> >> /** >> * 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 >> * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file >> * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the >> * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance >> * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at >> * >> * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >> * >> * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, >> * software distributed under the License is distributed on an >> * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY >> * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the >> * specific language governing permissions and limitations >> * under the License. >> */ >> >> >> >> - a >> >> On Mar 20, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Michael Greene wrote: >> >>> I can't speak to the Cocoa-specific patches, but Andrew's issue that >>> was moved to THRIFT-158 is a blocker for release--we might want to >>> have clarity on whether the first couple of sentences of the header >>> here: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html are a requirement, >>> as this patch omits them. Apart from this omission, the patch looks >>> good. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Andrew McGeachie <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I would very much appreciate it if someone could apply these patches: >>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-158 >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-280 >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-60 >>>> >>>> My poor Cocoa libraries are still sad & neglected. :( >>>> >>>> - a >> >> > > >
There have been a couple issues tagged to fix for 0.1 lately which i really doesn't consider as blocking... (THRIFT-154, THRIFT-72, THRIFT-360?). Do you guys agree for these issues to be "downgraded" so we can keep reasonable objectives for the 0.1 ? -- Jérémie 'ahFeel' BORDIER
