Not yet tested but is there someone who could have a look at this one : https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-5492 This regression seems strange
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > > On 4 July 2013 20:35, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I am withdrawing my -1 on the basis of the feedback I have received from > > legal-discuss. > > > > My vote is now +0 as I have not tested the distribution and I am waiting > > for somebody else on the PMC to do the running and make a call on whether > > we need to fix the NOTICE file for this release. > > > > I intend testing the distribution tomorrow unless this vote gets > cancelled > > ;-) > > > > - Stephen > > > > > > On Thursday, 4 July 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > >> Fair enough. > >> > >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Connolly < > >> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > I will let Barrie decide on whether we *have to* cancel this vote > >> because > >> > of the issues he identified in the NOTICE file. > >> > > >> > Until I hear back from legal-discuss, I do not know whether the test > >> data > >> > issue has any changes required, so I do not know whether (on the bits > I > >> am > >> > focusing) there is a requirement for us to respin yet, so from my > point > >> of > >> > view I am ok with keeping the vote open until I hear back from > >> > legal-discuss on the test data issue... but if Barrie's view is that > >> with > >> > the current NOTICE we cannot release, then no choice but to cancel the > >> vote > >> > now. > >> > > >> > I'd rather have a vote open to pester legal for a more prompt answer > >> (from > >> > a bunch of volunteers on the 4th of July weekend) than have no vote to > >> push > >> > them with. > >> > > >> > > >> > On 4 July 2013 13:54, Jason van Zyl <ja...@tesla.io> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Then just make the changes you see fit and I'll roll it again. It > will > >> >> only take a few minutes. If we know what it should be like then we > >> might as > >> >> well just do it, as it's likely to take less time than asking if an > >> >> exception can be made. > >> >> > >> >> I can cancel the vote. Make the changes you think are required for > >> >> compliance and I'll cut it again. > >> >> > >> >> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Stephen Connolly < > >> >> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I have asked the legal-discuss list for an opinion on test data sets > >> and > >> >>> license headers. From my reading of the current ASF position: > >> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions we do > not > >> >>> currently have an exception for test data sets. > >> >>> > >> >>> Pending the outcome of that discussion I will have to be > >> >>> > >> >>> -1 > >> >>> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we do not need to do anything for test data > >> sets, > >> >>> then I would be happy to switch to +1. > >> >>> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add some additional text to the > >> NOTICE > >> >>> files to cover the test data sets, then we will need to respin as > >> nobody > >> >> on > >> >>> the PMC can vote +1 if we are aware that the release is in violation > >> of > >> >> the > >> >>> ASF policies and we would be neglecting our governance role. > >> >>> > >> >>> If the outcome is that we need to add the license headers to all the > >> test > >> >>> data files, then I think the PMC will have to review what we want to > >> do > >> >> as > >> >>> adding license headers to every file in the test data set runs the > >> risk > >> >> of > >> >>> invalidating the test data and that is an unnecessary risk that > would > >> >>> cripple the project and as such I would be looking for the ASF to > >> change > >> >>> such a decision and provide us with a means of using the NOTICE file > >> to > >> >>> cover the test data. > >> >>> > >> >>> I hate being petty, but unfortunately that is part of the governance > >> role > >> >>> that the PMC is tasked with... :-( > >> >>> > >> >>> - Stephen > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 1 July 2013 03:56, Barrie Treloar <baerr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> On 1 July 2013 06:52, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> Another problem: the NOTICE file contains the following spurious > >> text: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ========================================================================= > >> >>>>> == NOTICE file corresponding to the section 4 d of > >> >>>> == > >> >>>>> == the Apache License, Version 2.0, > >> >>>> == > >> >>>>> == in this case for the Apache Maven distribution. > >> >>>> == > >> >>>>> > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> > ========================================================================= > >> >>>>We know what we are, but know not what we may be. > >> > >> -- Shakespeare > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Sent from my phone > > > -- ----- Arnaud Héritier http://aheritier.net Mail/GTalk: aheritier AT gmail DOT com Twitter/Skype : aheritier
