Haha, I’m so relieved. > On 30 Aug 2023, at 23:19, Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +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> >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
