Aidan Skinner wrote:
I think the API docs don't need the license as they're generated. I'm
not sure about the Makefile.ams but they probably do.
Done.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> Aidan Skinner wrote:
>> We shoud really integrate RAT into our release process.
>
> Are there defined rules for what must, should, may etc have the license
> included? Rat seems not to require it for READMEs or generated files? (I
> tried run
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Also bin/qpidd doesn't have the apache header or the various qpid?.conf
files.
I've added the license to the conf files and the qpidd init script and a
.cpp that was missing it. Also fixed a minor typ
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Gordon Sim wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>> Also bin/qpidd doesn't have the apache header or the various qpid?.conf
>> files.
>
> I've added the license to the conf files and the qpidd init script and a
> .cpp that was missing it. Also fixed a minor typo in the
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Also bin/qpidd doesn't have the apache header or the various qpid?.conf files.
I've added the license to the conf files and the qpidd init script and a
.cpp that was missing it. Also fixed a minor typo in the license
included for the management schema generators python scri
Curiosity:
Anyone know the license on the javax.servlet.jar that is in the java stuff?
The MANIFEST notes its built by JBOSS so it's not the Sun CDDL one or the
Geronimo specs Apache licensed one.I'd personally suggest flipping to the
geronimo-specs version.
Also bin/qpidd doesn't have
M4 RC3 can be found here:
http://people.apache.org/~rhs/qpid-M4-RC3/
I don't know of any outstanding blockers, so I think we're ready for a vote.
FYI I'm on holiday starting tomorrow through next week, so RC4 if needed
won't be till the 22nd, however the release build is fairly well
scripted
