If the problem existed in 0.2, and 0.3 I would say no, also isnt thr the 0.2.1 release just the application module? If so there is nothing to respin.
Alasdair Nottingham On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:19, Emily Jiang <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Tim for your explaination. I got the wrong release number:(. Just > wondering whether this is important enough to respin sample release 0.2.1? > > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Timothy Ward <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Hi Emily, >> >> That was for the 0.2.1 release of the application component. >> >> Tim >> >> ---------------------------------------- >>> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:21:25 +0000 >>> Subject: Re: License is incomplete in three files of blog itests >>> From: [email protected] >>> To: [email protected] >>> >>> Thanks, Alasdair. I thought there will be a respin due to the copyright >> year >>> problem Tim mentioned:o. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Alasdair Nottingham wrote: >>> >>>> Err, well I think the vote on 0.3 passed so I guess no, but thanks for >> the >>>> fix so it'll be right next time. >>>> >>>> Alasdair Nottingham >>>> >>>> On 3 Feb 2011, at 21:36, Emily Jiang wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just noticed there are three files in blog itests with the incomplete >>>>> license. The license reads: >>>>> >>>>> /* >>>>> * 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. >>>>> */ >>>>> >>>>> As you can see the first line 'Licensed to the Apache Software >> Foundation >>>>> (ASF) under one' was missing:(. >>>>> >>>>> Do we need to fix this before we start a vote for 0.3 release? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Emily >>>>> ================= >>>>> Emily Jiang >>>>> [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks >>> Emily >>> ================= >>> Emily Jiang >>> [email protected] >> >> > > > > -- > Thanks > Emily > ================= > Emily Jiang > [email protected]
