Hi, > b) it uses the same formatting/style as the original example, which is > different to the style of the rest of the code. > > The indentation/formatting/style of the code is entirely consistent
I'd suggest you look again; other code put chained functions on a single line rather than multiple lines, unlike the linked-to example. The fact that the code also contains content (as a comment) that was directly copied word for word from a 3rd party source indicates that it is highly likely it was copied and modified. > This is not surprising as this standard for IDE's to format code this way The code is inconstantly formatted, so an IDE has not done this. There a couple of options here, you can either: a) Remove the code and comment and rewrite it. b) Add the CCO license to your LICENSE file. c) Continue to argue about it and hold up the release. Also, consider this from a risk point of view. Even if you didn’t need to add that license, it is, in the worse case, a documentation error rather than a licensing issue. Also users will not be surprised by what they find if they look closer. In general, if there is some doubt that a license should be added, then add it. Even if you ignore that, what option do you think will take the least amount of time? Kind Regards, Justin --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
