Thanks,
Craig Begin forwarded message:
From: David Crossley <[email protected]> Date: March 31, 2009 6:18:24 PM PDT To: Craig L Russell <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fwd: MODERATE for [email protected] Craig L Russell wrote:I have allowed, accepted, and otherwise approved messages from sebb and I still get these moderation requests (third one today). I always remove the body when replying-all. Any ideas?On my mail client, i do "reply all", then need to manually remove some junk at the beginning of the "Cc" header.i.e. my client shows "Cc: Recipient list not shown: ;, ${listname}- allow...So after removing that junk, i end up with: To: ${listname}-accept-... Cc: ${listname}-allow-... Does that help? Another issue might be that another moderator has beaten you to it and accepted the post. Then it is too late to add him to the allow list. As Jukka said, no need to remove body. -DavidBegin forwarded message:From: olio-dev-reject-1238526139.18275.bnghmajgikgflakoh...@incubator.apache.org Date: March 31, 2009 12:02:19 PM PDT To: Recipient list not shown: ; Cc: olio-dev-allow-tc.1238526139.aefnkhhmnhjmcakkdkjg-sebbaz=gmail....@incubator.apache.org Subject: MODERATE for [email protected] Reply-To: olio-dev-accept-1238526139.18275.bnghmajgikgflakoh...@incubator.apache.org To approve: olio-dev-accept-1238526139.18275.bnghmajgikgflakoh...@incubator.apache.org To reject: olio-dev-reject-1238526139.18275.bnghmajgikgflakoh...@incubator.apache.org To give a reason to reject: %%% Start comment %%% End comment From: sebb <[email protected]> Date: March 31, 2009 12:01:50 PM PDT To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Olio 0.1 On 31/03/2009, Craig L Russell <[email protected]> wrote:On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:21 AM, Shanti Subramanyam wrote:Craig L Russell wrote:On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:All package names have been changed to org.apache.olio. We haveupdatedmany source license/header files and added the LICENSE, NOTICEfiles.However, the RAT report shows that there are lots of files without the correct headers. AIUI, the correct headers are a *requirement* for a release:http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#release-legal-auditThere's a document somewhere describing how to deal with existingcopyright headers.It should be referenced somewhere in the Incubator documentation.Generally, copyright notices should be moved from their originallocation in the source and put into the NOTICE file. Since there is already the Sun copyright notice in NOTICE, the original can simply be replaced by the Apache license. The history in svn has the original copyright so it's not lost.There are different forms of the Apache license depending on the type offile, e.g. java source has the /** style format, xml would have the <!-- format, shell scripts would have # format, etc.If a file format cannot accept any comments (rare) then this should benoted in a discussion of the RAT output in the vote message.Other than the Sun copyright notice (which has already been moved and allsource files modified with the correct Apache notice), we have no othercopyright notices to move. The few other notices are from third- partyplugins which according to http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#3party should be left where they are - so I didn't touch them.RIght, but they would need to be put into the NOTICE so people don't have to scour the release looking for third party copyright notices.and we can't insert any notices in them. I assume this is acceptable.However, the big issue we have is that there is a lot of generated codeRight. This is not an issue. You might note these in the release votediscussion of the RAT output.We have binary files (jpgs, etc.) as well as a lot of third-party codewith no notices at all which is what RAT is flagging.The binary files are ok. If RAT is flagging them then we would need to look at why RAT doesn't understand the file suffix.For all third-party code, we had verified the licenses before checking inthe code to svn (BSD, MIT or ruby licenses).I'm not convinced that the license permits Ruby code to be added to SVN. Here is the a reference I found to the use of works under the Ruby license: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html This does not allows projects to include Ruby-licensed code.Cool. Just need to copy the licenses into the NOTICE.Surely the licenses go into the LICENSE file (verbatim or as links)? Required attributions and copyright notices go in the NOTICE file.CraigCraigShanti---------------------------------------------------------------------To unsubscribe, e-mail:[email protected]For additional commands, e-mail:[email protected]Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig L Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
