[RESULT][VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

The vote for releasing Apache TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating passed with 3 binding +1s, 0 non-binding +1s, and no 0 or -1. Binding +1s: Daniel Gruno Sergio Fernández Justin Mclean Thanks to those who were able to take the time to vote. Justin/Sergio, will try to get LICENSE/NOTICE solid for the

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

+1 (binding) So far I've checked in the source release: signatures and digests, source releases file layouts, matched git tags and commit ids, incubator suffix and disclaimer, build sources in a clean environment (oracle java 8u66+8u65arm-1~webupd8~1 on debian 64bits). I think Justin already

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

> but different copyright years do you need to put anything in NOTICE? From what I’ve seen the answer is no ok - so because we have TinkerPop boilerplate at the top of NOTICE, we can drop others that have that same boilerplate with different copyright years. > HPPC (no notice file) You'd

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, >> HPPC (no notice file) > > You'd previously suggested that we assume a standard notice for HPPC and > add copyright but i believe i found that copyright in their source notice > at one point. Up to you/the PPMC I think, INAL but given there's no NOTICE there’s no need to do anything. >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

+1 (binding) Passed my usual compliance checks. With regards, Daniel. On 11/23/2015 09:28 AM, Sergio Fernández wrote: > +1 (binding) > > So far I've checked in the source release: signatures and digests, source > releases file layouts, matched git tags and commit ids, incubator suffix > and

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, > anyway, I've read it again, in the context of what you've said here, and it > seems like we should not have included the Apache licensed dependencies in > the binary LICENSE file Yep that’s correct. > I didn't change the binary NOTICE files as I believe that their contents > are just

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

And another thing..it has no names so I do have a right for legal issues and publication. inspirational laison On 22 Nov 2015 09:02, marywantsalittlelamb...@gmail.com wrote: That's OK. I have it saved for a higher authority. inspirational laison On 22 Nov 2015 08:45, "Stephen Mallette"

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

That's OK. I have it saved for a higher authority. inspirational laison On 22 Nov 2015 08:45, "Stephen Mallette" wrote: > tbh, I've never found that licensing how-to document terribly clear - i > feel like i get a different read of it every time i go through it. maybe >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

And another thing..it has no names so I do have a right for legal issues and publication. inspirational laison On 22 Nov 2015 08:45, "Stephen Mallette" wrote: > tbh, I've never found that licensing how-to document terribly clear - i > feel like i get a different read of it

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

tbh, I've never found that licensing how-to document terribly clear - i feel like i get a different read of it every time i go through it. maybe it's just me. anyway, I've read it again, in the context of what you've said here, and it seems like we should not have included the Apache licensed

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Thank you Mary, and welcome aboard! You are an inspiration to others! On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Mary the sonnetor < marywantsalittlelamb...@gmail.com> wrote: > And another thing..it has no names so I do have a right for legal issues > and publication. > > inspirational laison > On 22

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

> Bundled with the software (according to the license file) is Activiti which is Apache licensed and has a notice file [1] (although most of this content shouldn't actually be in license). As per [2] this needs to be looked at and parts added to the Tinkerpop NOTICE file. However I can’t even

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

HI, > Maybe we did something wrong here, but those classes are here: > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/structure/io/graphml/GraphMLWriterHelper.java > > The are basically just recreated as inner classes in that

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.1.0-incubating Release

Hi, +1 binding I checked: - release files include incubating in the name - signatures and hashes good - DISCLAIMER exists - LICENSE good (although no need to list Apache licensed software) - NOTICE has an issue (see below) - All source files have Apache headers - No unexpected binaries in source