Hello, Harbs, My two cents:
Regardless of policy, I don't see how it makes sense from a governance perspective for individuals to take controversial independent action on something so important as release publication. The mere fact that a dispute exists should block such changes. Can't the Flex PMC resolve this issue on that basis? Marvin Humphrey On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification! > > I’m still not sure I understand. In plain English we seem to have these > unresolved questions: > > 1) (Re)compiling convenience packages with modifications to binary > dependencies after the release vote: Is that kosher or not? > 2) If a binary dependency is added to a convenience package (instead of > being downloaded at install time) which results in the need to modify the > LICENSE / NOTICE file that’s accompanying the convenience package, does > that require a new VOTE and release or not? > 3) In our case, the binary dependency is JBurg which is used as part of the > compiler process on the client’s machine. It’s not byte code that is > compiled into the resultant binary. The literal interpretation of the > text would lean towards saying that’s a no-no. I find it hard to believe > that that’s the intent. Is there any way to better clarify this point? > > Justin, please correct me if I missed any points or misrepresented any of > them. > > Thanks, > Harbs --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
