+1 Cancel the emergency appendectomy.
> On Aug 30, 2023, at 2:07 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for looking at this. I think I now recall why I didn’t remove
> the Appendix when the issue was first reported. The license itself refers to
> the appendix when it defines “Work”:
>
> "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
> Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
> copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
> (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
>
> I feel that we should remove this last parenthesis for the license to make
> sense without the Appendix, but I'd prefer not to bother any lawyers ;-) If
> you don't mind, I'd rather keep it.
>
>> On 30 Aug 2023, at 20:02, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the definitive answer:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-346. My reading is that it is OK
>> to include or exclude the appendix.
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 2023, at 6:38 AM, Calvin Kirs <k...@apache.org
>>> <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 7:17 PM Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com><mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Calvin,
>>>> Hello Julian,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your reviews and for taking the time to list these points.
>>>> You will find my comments below.
>>>>
>>>>> 1. The binary version needs to include the license of all components
>>>>> required for compilation. If it is a standard AL2, it can be ignored.
>>>>> You can refer to [1]
>>>>> 2. The binary version of NOTICE needs to include the licenses of all
>>>>> dependent third-party components (AFAIK, this is only required when
>>>>> the license of the dependencies is AL2), you can refer to [2]
>>>>
>>>> We do have a THIRD-PARTY file at the root of the binary distribution that
>>>> lists the licenses of the components required for compilation and at
>>>> runtime. We don’t ignore AL2 licences in order to be exhaustive and to
>>>> keep the build process simple. We released version 0.7.1 believing this
>>>> was sufficient to comply with this requirement. What do you think?
>>>
>>> What I mean is all the contents of its license file (if it is standard
>>> AL2, you don't need to include it) and list them according to your
>>> needs.
>>>
>>> The same goes for NOTICE files. If these components use the AL2
>>> protocol and include NOTICE, then you need to include these in the
>>> NOTICE file in the root directory.
>>> I think Josh is familiar with this.
>>>>
>>>>> 3. The LICENSE file of the binary version needs to declare which
>>>>> version of the source code your binary version is based on. You can
>>>>> refer to [3]
>>>>
>>>> Ok, we shall address this.
>>>>
>>>>> Source package:
>>>>> 1. For the LICENSE file in the source code package, I don't know which
>>>>> specific codes are dependent on the source code, so I can't check
>>>>> whether it is correct or not. I suggest that we list the specific
>>>>> modifications in the license.
>>>>
>>>> I’m worried that this listing won’t survive a refactoring. The current
>>>> approach is to include a clear reference to the original project in the
>>>> javadoc. Here is an exemple:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/blob/a62a1a38f809134e3bf4c69fd192523877babd7e/baremaps-core/src/main/java/org/apache/baremaps/stream/BufferedSpliterator.java#L28
>>>>
>>>> As a result searching for the names listed in the LICENSE file in the
>>>> codebase quickly returns the adapted files. For instance, searching for
>>>> OSMPBF will return the osmformat.proto file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2. The license of logo.svg is Font Awesome Free License. I see that
>>>>> Font Awesome Free is free, open source, and GPL friendly. You can use
>>>>> it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really almost
>>>>> whatever you want.
>>>>> This is not allowed to be added to ASF projects.
>>>>
>>>> Good catch, we need to address this and find a replacement for this icon.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/hadoop/tree/trunk/licenses-binary
>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/NOTICE-binary
>>>>> [3] https://github.com/apache/hadoop/blob/trunk/LICENSE-binary
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 4:10 AM Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -1 (binding)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Downloaded, checked src-tar contents against git tag [1], checked
>>>>>> LICENSE/NOTICE/README/DISCLAIMER [2], checked signatures/hashes[3],
>>>>>> checked for binaries in src-tar, compiled using OpenJDK 17 and Maven
>>>>>> 3.8.1, ran rat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything that I checked looks good. But I’m voting -1 because of the
>>>>>> binary licensing issues that Calvin reported. Let’s get those issues
>>>>>> fixed and do another RC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way. I think we should keep the voting period to 3 days (or 4
>>>>>> days over a weekend). Even though votes may sometimes take a long time,
>>>>>> the voters SHOULD try to vote promptly. If there is a serious issue, we
>>>>>> would like to discover it quickly and move to the next RC in a tempo of
>>>>>> days rather than weeks.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for clarifying this point.
>>>>
>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] Git and src-tar mostly match:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $ diff -r . /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/
>>>>>> Only in /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-cli/src: test
>>>>>> Only in /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-ogcapi: target
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: assets
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: declaration.d.ts
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: .gitignore
>>>>>> Only in /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-renderer:
>>>>>> node_modules
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: package.json
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: package-lock.json
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: .prettierignore
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: .prettierrc.json
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: README.md
>>>>>> Only in ./baremaps-renderer: tsconfig.json
>>>>>> Only in
>>>>>> /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/baremaps-server/src/main/resources:
>>>>>> maputnik
>>>>>> Only in .: basemap
>>>>>> Only in .: examples
>>>>>> Only in .: .git
>>>>>> Only in .: .github
>>>>>> Only in .: .gitignore
>>>>>> Only in .: .min
>>>>>> Only in .: mvnw
>>>>>> Only in .: mvnw.cmd
>>>>>> diff -r ./README /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/README
>>>>>> 1c1
>>>>>> < # Apache Baremaps (incubating) ${project.version}
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> # Apache Baremaps (incubating) 0.7.2
>>>>>> diff -r ./scripts/generate-artifacts.sh
>>>>>> /tmp/apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src/scripts/generate-artifacts.sh
>>>>>> 22c22
>>>>>> < version=$(./mvnw -q -Dexec.executable=echo
>>>>>> -Dexec.args='${project.version}' --non-recursive exec:exec)
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> version=$(./mvnw -q -Dexec.executable=echo -Dexec.args='0.7.2'
>>>>>>> --non-recursive exec:exec)
>>>>>> 35c35
>>>>>> < for artifact in ./baremaps-$version-incubating-*; do
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> for artifact in ./apache-baremaps-$version-incubating-*; do
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any reason not to include .github/, .gitignore, examples, basemap, and
>>>>>> the various files in baremaps-renderer ?
>>>>
>>>> We use the baremaps-renderer solely to perform integration tests on the
>>>> basemap before making significant changes to the style. I’m not sure if it
>>>> makes sense to include it in the release.
>>>>
>>>>>> [2] In LICENSE, you should remove the "APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache
>>>>>> License to your work” section.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for that, I believe you already mentioned this point in a previous
>>>> review.
>>>>
>>>>>> [3] I received the same error as Calvin did:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>>" [unknown].
>>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>>>>> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
>>>>>> owner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This error can be fixed by Bertil getting his key signed by someone in
>>>>>> our web of trust. This can be done after release, but let’s get it done.
>>>>
>>>> It would be great if someone could guide me in this process. I believe
>>>> Bertrand could help as we meet in person from time to time.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Bertil
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2023, at 12:02 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Calvin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would be great if you can list a few actionable items regarding
>>>>>>> licensing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/issues/492
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did a pass on almost everything before joining the incubator, and had
>>>>>>> to rewrite or find alternatives to all the problematic GPL
>>>>>>> dependencies. A second pass made after joining the incubator revealed a
>>>>>>> few additional issues, but I think we are close from being compliant.
>>>>>>> In my opinion, the main issue is related to datasets (e.g.
>>>>>>> openstreetmap files) used in the tests. We added the DISCLAIMER-WIP to
>>>>>>> acknowledge these issues in the src and binary distributions without
>>>>>>> blocking the release process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 29 Aug 2023, at 18:12, Josh Fischer <j...@joshfischer.io
>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@joshfischer.io>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Calvin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You made me think of a license question. With Heron, we kept a
>>>>>>>> separate copy of all the licenses that were not ALV2 [1]. Is this
>>>>>>>> something that needs to be done for Baremaps?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. https://github.com/apache/incubator-heron/tree/master/licenses
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2023, at 11:04 AM, Calvin Kirs <k...@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll find time tomorrow to list specific checks.
>>>>>>>>> BTW, we cannot fully rely on rat to indicate whether the license is
>>>>>>>>> compliant.
>>>>>>>>> In addition, regarding the modification of source code dependencies,
>>>>>>>>> we'd better list the specific files in the LICENSE file, otherwise it
>>>>>>>>> is difficult for us to judge whether this part is compliant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:31 PM Calvin Kirs <k...@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:k...@apache.org><mailto:k...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:39 PM Josh Fischer <j...@joshfischer.io
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@joshfischer.io>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right now I’m 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I’ve not run across this before, I’m not sure if it’s an issue for
>>>>>>>>>>> the release. See gpg output below about the key not being
>>>>>>>>>>> certified. This is the reason my vote is 0 at the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>> gpg --verify $FILE.asc $FILE
>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: Signature made Thu Aug 24 07:11:17 2023 CDT
>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: using RSA key
>>>>>>>>>>> 16D7A0B27D5ADD52BD57932971751399FB39CB84
>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: Good signature from "Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>>" [unknown]
>>>>>>>>>>> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> don't worry, it's ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I checked:
>>>>>>>>>>> - Downloaded; checked hashes/signatures; checked LICENSE, NOTICE,
>>>>>>>>>>> DISCLAIMER-WIP; compiled and ran tests on OSX, OpenJDK 17, Maven
>>>>>>>>>>> 3.8.4.
>>>>>>>>>>> - Rat check showed 1441 unapproved licenses. However, since we are
>>>>>>>>>>> a WIP and I think this issue is known, so we are good.
>>>>>>>>>>> - I tried to run the example from the tar.gz binary, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> website seems to refer to the repo - not a release. As an example,
>>>>>>>>>>> the openStreet Map example wouldn’t work with one of our binary
>>>>>>>>>>> releases. This isn’t a blocker by any means, just a developer
>>>>>>>>>>> experience idea that I thought about while checking the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> $ cd examples/openstreetmap
>>>>>>>>>>> $ baremaps workflow execute --file workflow.json
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because the “examples” folder wasn’t in the binary release I wasn’t
>>>>>>>>>>> sure how to run the example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Josh
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Josh and Julian. There is no hurry, especially if we can
>>>>>>>>>>>> increase the duration of the vote.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As we all have busy schedule, I will probably extend future
>>>>>>>>>>>> release votes to one week in the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertil
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2023, at 19:07, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:jhyde.apa...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What Josh said. I’ll review & vote today. Apologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2023, at 7:42 AM, Josh Fischer <j...@joshfischer.io
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:j...@joshfischer.io>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I apologize for my absence. I will spend some time looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in the next 24 hours.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is one of the fun and challenging parts of working through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the incubator. I’ve had votes go over two weeks before. Our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> best bet is to get as many binding (preferably 3) votes on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dev@baremaps list. It’s often harder to get votes on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general@a.o <mailto:general@a.o> <mailto:general@a.o>.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let’s wait a few more days to get binding votes. Open-source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moves at the speed of open-source, fun!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Aug 28, 2023, at 9:10 AM, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don’t have enough vote for publishing our release. Can we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extend the deadline or should we start a new vote?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see that some projects, such as Apache Pekko, ask the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incubator mailing-list to vote for their releases. Should we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to do the same?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Aug 2023, at 14:52, Bertil Chapuis <bchap...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:bchap...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Following our online release party (thank you Leonard and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perdjesk), we have created a build for Apache Baremaps
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (incubating) 0.7.2, release candidate 1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can read the release notes here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/releases/tag/v0.7.2-rc1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The commit to be voted upon:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-baremaps/tree/v0.7.2-rc1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its hash is e917d5b02fdb64c3f715afd449bb1fe9ca5c2f58.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its tag is v0.7.2-rc1.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The artifacts to be voted on are located here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/baremaps/0.7.2-rc1/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The hashes of the artifacts are as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> d910b50ebed4200d0ef6f0c1ee3e4db0cd95ea005fe54fca66dfc4ec4dca73e96edc8913654c85c73539d6a9d27481157fea9f456a9f3aa451c178a811a89ea0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-src.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fda00056b9785bbbb7f966e92cf7e118071f5b6d44f9652176a4626cec38c5b0738933b24e23efef423eafba2111bc6a22e6f00a67fda2f10b0011f9c22f3208
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./apache-baremaps-0.7.2-incubating-bin.tar.gz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/bchapuis.asc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://downloads.apache.org/incubator/baremaps/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The README file for the src distribution contains instructions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for building and testing the release.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please vote on releasing this package as Apache Baremaps 0.7.2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of at least three +1 PMC votes are cast.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache Baremaps <version>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> release
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is my vote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 (binding): I checked the signatures and the checksums; I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built the project from its sources; and checked the binary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bertil Chapuis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes！
>>>>>>>>>> CalvinKirs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes！
>>>>>>>>> CalvinKirs
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Best wishes！
>>>>> CalvinKirs
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best wishes！
>>> CalvinKirs
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org
>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>> <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@baremaps.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org
>>> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org> <mailto:dev-h...@baremaps.apache.org>
