Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Derby Development" <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <41B64A14.2010603@debrunners.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:25:56 -0800
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@debrunners.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031008
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Derby Development <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Subject: Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
References: <6D5D7224-47E7-11D9-8BD0-003065CBB010@nonintuitive.com>
 <000501c4dcb7$4d80a960$1401a8c0@rpws002>
 <47DF9C20-48AE-11D9-8BD0-003065CBB010@nonintuitive.com>
In-Reply-To: <47DF9C20-48AE-11D9-8BD0-003065CBB010@nonintuitive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew McIntyre wrote:

>
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 3:48 PM, RPost wrote:
>
>> Do comments like this one in
>> org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data.StoredPage.java
>> need to be changed? I have seen similar comments in other files from the
>> 10.0.2.1 source.
>>
>> /* IBM Confidential
>
>
> Confidential notices should have been changed to IBM Copyright notices
> before the source was handed over to Apache, but apparently a few files
> slipped through. I'm guessing that any remaining Confidential notices
> should probably be changed over to the Apache license header by an IBM
> employee, but that is just my guess. Ken and/or Dan can provide an
> official answer to that question.

Looks like my script handled some cases incorrectly, I'll look at fixing
them.

Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBtkoUIv0S4qsbfuQRAh0mAJ0b+2AMdsNthgscd+zM7QJCf//xJACfWhIT
VDiYkgJfFYdU4rH0X8TV0NU=
=aN1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----