Hi all:
We have made revisions one by one according to the issues pointed out by
Justin (see : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TUBEMQ-543). If anyone
have any questions, please continue to point out, Thanks!
After all PRs are merged, we will initiate a new round of version release
and
Hi Justin:
I have understood the following questions, thanks:
Thank you for your prompt reply, I understand. And there is one more
question for help:
- NOTICE is missing information from other Apache licensed NOTICE files.
Information from these NOTICE files [5][6][7][10] will need to be
Hi Justin:
Thank you for your prompt reply, I understand. And there is one more
question for help:
- NOTICE is missing information from other Apache licensed NOTICE files.
Information from these NOTICE files [5][6][7][10] will need to be added.
We did it in the way of [6] [10]. What is the
Hi,
> 1. If the referenced file source has the original version statement, we
> should keep it as it is and cannot replace it with the Apache v2 statement?
Correct.
> 2. If the referenced file source does not have a version statement, but the
> project of the file has a version statement, do
Hi,
> 1. Is it necessary to remove the description of part B in the above
> screenshot?
I can’t see teh screen shot so not sure what you are asking here sorry.
> 2. If the file source itself does not have a LICENSE authorization statement,
> but the top level of the project is Apache V2 or
Hi Justin,
Regarding the point 3, I have questions:
1. If the referenced file source has the original version statement, we
should keep it as it is and cannot replace it with the Apache v2 statement?
2. If the referenced file source does not have a version statement, but the
project of the file
[image: image.png]
Hi Justin:
Regarding the third point, I don’t quite understand. Regarding [3] [4] [9]:
1. Is it necessary to remove the description of part B in the above
screenshot?
2. If the file source itself does not have a LICENSE authorization
statement, but the top level of the
Hi,
> - These files seem to have incorrect headers [1][2][3][4][8][9]. ASF headers
> should include a copyright line and 3rd part headers need to be kept
> unchanged.
Sorry that should be "ASF headers should NOT include a copyright line”
Thanks,
Justin
Hi, Justin
Thanks for your check, we will go through your comments and create jira
correspondingly.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:43 AM Goson zhang wrote:
> Thanks Justin, very complete and detailed guidance, thank you!!
>
> The BDB download problem, if the third-party warehouse cannot let
Thanks Justin, very complete and detailed guidance, thank you!!
The BDB download problem, if the third-party warehouse cannot let everyone
compile, we will make adjustments.
Thanks
Justin Mclean 于2021年1月28日周四 上午10:01写道：
> Hi,
>
> -1 (binding) due to license and notice issues and possible
Hi,
-1 (binding) due to license and notice issues and possible inclusion of
Category X software
It unclear to me if the berkeleydb-je licensing issue has been resolved. I
can’t find any discussion of it on your mailing list. Can someone tell me what
the outcome of this was?
I checked:
-
Hello Incubator Community,
This is a call for a vote to release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) version
0.8.0-incubating RC1
The Apache TubeMQ community has voted on and approved a proposal to
release
Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) version 0.8.0-incubating RC1
We now kindly request
12 matches
Mail list logo
