Re: headers discussion

From: Bill Dudney (bdudne..pache.org)
Date: Mon Aug 07 2006 - 09:55:57 EDT

  • Next message: Gentry, Michael \(Contractor\): "RE: headers discussion"

    That would be great if its already done (and it probably is from the
    sound of it). I just saw the chatter on the Geronimo list and figured
    I'd better get the word out here because I had not seen it here.

    But I guess I was heads down on day job when the discussion was
    happening.

    TTFN,

    -bd-

    On Aug 7, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) wrote:

    > Unless I'm missing a subtle difference, these are the changes we did a
    > few weeks back immediately after 1.2 was released. I even used
    > mogrify
    > to add a "See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 for license
    > information." comment to the images. There wasn't enough room to
    > store
    > the entire license as a comment, so I improvised a bit (there was no
    > direction on how to handle this in the FAQ/etc).
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > /dev/mrg
    >
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Bill Dudney [mailto:bdudne..pache.org]
    > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 12:42 AM
    > To: cayenne-de..ncubator.apache.org
    > Subject: headers discussion
    >
    >
    > HI All,
    >
    > One last thread tonight...
    >
    > I wanted to give everyone a heads up to something I just noticed [1].
    > It is a new policy for the license comments in src files.
    >
    > The discussion is happening on the leagal-discuss [2] lists now as to
    > what time frame this will be required in. I've read Sep 1st and that
    > it might be postponed but either way I think we will have to conform
    > before the 3.0 release is ready to go.
    >
    > Anyone have any bandwidth to tackle this change?
    >
    > TTFN,
    >
    > -bd-
    >
    > [1]http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
    > [2]http://tinyurl.com/m6x3u



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Aug 07 2006 - 09:56:53 EDT