Okay, I can do a PR. However, it might make more sense to do a full review of the LICENSE/NOTICE files to ensure everything is up-to-date all at once. I'll create a JIRA for that.
Speaking of LICENSE/NOTICE files, I noticed: 1. The .txt suffix (ASF prefers bare names, and lots of tools assume bare, but ASF permits PMC to decide to use .txt extensions), and 2. The NOTICE.txt file seems to contain stuff about Airlift that I'm not sure is necessary. See https://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html Would the project be amenable to using bare file names (no .txt extension)? Would it be okay to remove the Airlift stuff from the NOTICE file? Or, is there some valid reason the Airlift wording must stay? Thanks, Christopher On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:49 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Il Mer 8 Apr 2020, 06:18 tison <wander4...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > From the git history I think it is just old and need to be updated. > > > > FYI, there is an ongoing effort ZOOKEEPER-102 trying to add protobuf as an > > option for serde and finally deprecated jute. > > > > Best, > > tison. > > > > > > Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> 于2020年4月8日周三 上午11:25写道： > > > > > Does ZooKeeper use, or have any generated code using protocol buffers? > > > > > > I ask because zookeeper-server/src/main/resources/NOTICE.txt > > > Good catch! > > (master > > > branch, 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT) references it as an optional dependency, but I > > > can't find any '*.proto' source files or any code that looks like it > > > was generated with protobuf. > > > > > We are not using it. > We should remove that information. > > Enrico > > > > > > Is this just old and need to be updated? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Christopher > > > > >
