Hi, +1 binding
I checked: - signatures and hashes fine - name contains incubating - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE and NOTICE good - No unexpected binaries - Source file have apache headers (some have extra ones) - Can compile on OS X (but it takes a while) I still think there’s a couple of minor issues with license. - For instance the added text "The following dependencies or pieces of incorporated source code have licenses such that either:...” is IMO incorrect. For instance BSD requires license to be both in source and binary distributions. - It’s unclear why the 1/2 dozen non Apache license software listed under this text are treated in a different way to the other bundled software.Wouldn’t it be better to be consistent and handle all licenses the same way? - This file [1] isn’t BSD as noted in the license but a modified zlib, notice the clauses about modifications There also looks to be some minor issues with Apache headers in several files Several files have double Apache headers. For instance in src/kudu/util: bit-stream-utils.h, bit-stream-utils.inline.h, bit-util-test.cc, bit-util.h, logging.cclogging.h, rle-encoding.h, rle-test.cc, url-coding-test.cc, url-coding.h It also may be that Apache headers have been added to files that shouldn’t have them? For Instance [2] is stated as BSD in the license file but has an Apache header. Was the original header removed? Also [3] has an Apache header but notes it's BSD licensed. These are not the only examples. Thanks, Justin 1. src/kudu/gutil/valgrind.h 2. src/kudu/util/random-util.cc 3. src/kudu/util/sync_point.cc --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
