the build is ok, Signature/checksum looks good,
+1
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Rex Wang <rwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +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
>
--
Best regards!
John Xiao
