Richard, Thanks for bringing this up and this is a great point. Let's start another thread for it so we don't hijack the release thread.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Richard Hillegas <rhil...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > > Under your guidance, I would be happy to help compile a NOTICE file which > > follows the pattern used by Derby and the JDK. This effort might proceed > in > > parallel with vetting 1.5.1 and could be targeted at a later release > > vehicle. I don't think that the ASF's exposure is greatly increased by > one > > more release which follows the old pattern. > > I'd prefer to use the ASF's preferred pattern, no? That's what we've > been trying to do and seems like we're even required to do so, not > follow a different convention. There is some specific guidance there > about what to add, and not add, to these files. Specifically, because > the AL2 requires downstream projects to embed the contents of NOTICE, > the guidance is to only include elements in NOTICE that must appear > there. > > Put it this way -- what would you like to change specifically? (you > can start another thread for that) > > >> My assessment (just looked before I saw Sean's email) is the same as > >> his. The NOTICE file embeds other projects' licenses. > > > > This may be where our perspectives diverge. I did not find those licenses > > embedded in the NOTICE file. As I see it, the licenses are cited but not > > included. > > Pretty sure that was meant to say that NOTICE embeds other projects' > "notices", not licenses. And those notices can have all kinds of > stuff, including licenses. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org > >
