On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:34 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according to
http://apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#notice which specifically refers
to
On 29 November 2011 16:37, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement, according
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but the next release should fix that.
Agreed.
For some background: Keeping the NOTICE file as lean as possible
(given
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's worry
about this for the 0.7.x or 0.8.0 release
It think it *is* a requirement,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
Are there any consequences for the ASF?
Depends but potentially in some cases, yes.
Robert
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 5:52 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any consequences for downstream users if the file is incorrect?
To users no, to redistributors yes.
Section 4 of ALv2 makes the attribution notices contained within the
NOTICE file mandatory for any downstream
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
On Monday, November 28, 2011, Alan D. Cabrera
wrote:
... It is not a requirement that the NOTICE file be minimal. Let's
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I agree that a non-minimal NOTICE might not warrant rejecting a podling
release, but
One shortcut that can be taken when a /single file/ must be changed
(and as discussed on the list, that change already has consensus),
would be to roll the next candidate on a shorter 24 approval clock,
provided that everyone had full opportunity to review the candidate,
and that rest of the
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:38 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 11/29/2011 11:30 AM, sebb wrote:
On 29 November 2011 16:59, Robert Burrell Donkin
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
bdelacre...@apache.org wrote:
I
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
There's no such thing as a perfect release (all non-trivial software
has
On 29 November 2011 22:25, Jukka Zitting jukka.zitt...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:30 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
But if the team already agrees that the changes need to be made, why
not do so and re-roll?
I'd just leave that up to the release manager to decide.
13 matches
Mail list logo
