+1, All looked good to me, great to see 3.0!! Thanks Forrest! -Rex
2012/7/6 Forrest Xia <forres...@gmail.com> > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Jul 5, 2012, at 9:27 PM, Forrest Xia wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:23 PM, David Jencks wrote: >> > >> > > I'm a little confused by the LICENSE and NOTICE in the source. I've >> been telling people for years that these should apply to what is actually >> in the source, however these appear to be the ones appropriate for the >> binary distros. For instance they point to files in the repository folder >> which only exists in the binary distro. >> > >> > That can be debated. And I've seen both styles used. I'm not sure which >> style I prefer. Separate source and binary license files may be more >> accurate, but they also may be misinterpreted. I do agree that >> license/notice in jar files should be source licenses… >> > >> > In any event, the current source LICENSE file clearly indicates what >> applies to source and binaries. A consumer of the source should be able to >> easily sort out what applies/doesn't apply… So, I'm fine with it as is… >> > Kevan, your vote? >> >> Was waiting for build to finish. Given the US holidays, etc. I'd give >> this a few more days to gather additional votes… >> > OK, that's fine to wait a couple days for this vote. > >> >> --kevan > > > > > -- > Thanks! > > Regards, Forrest > > -- Lei Wang (Rex) rwonly AT apache.org
