On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why >>> not do so and re-roll? >> >> I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide. >> >> There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software >> has errors), so unless the fix is already available and the RM willing >> to do the extra effort I wouldn't stress too much about getting such >> non-critical changes in until the next release. > > I would question whether these N&L errors are non-critical. > > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain > > says > > "Every ASF release *must* comply with ASF licensing policy. This > requirement is of utmost importance and an audit should be performed > before any full release is created. In particular, every artifact > distributed must contain appropriate LICENSE and NOTICE files." > > I read this as meaning that the N&L files are (one of) the most > important part(s) of a release. >
I agree they're important and we need to teach poddlings how to do them correctly and they must not be missing things that are included in the release, but i still say that having some unnecessary content in the LICENSE or NOTICE is not necessarily a blocker. No one is going to sue the ASF if a release includes a license or notice that it actually doesn't need, so its down to the poddling to decide if they want to respin to remove it. ...ant --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
