Mailing-List: contact cassandra-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release cassandra 0.4.0-rc2
From: Eric Evans <eevans@rackspace.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: "cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org" <cassandra-dev@incubator.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <30b2aef60909140824x3e07fb61j379d89d39a54412f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1252689278.4607.106.camel@achilles>
	 <25aac9fc0909140052v4c570f61s2abf282c3406c724@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1252940767.4607.118.camel@achilles>
	 <30b2aef60909140824x3e07fb61j379d89d39a54412f@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:46:10 -0500
Message-Id: <1252943170.4607.130.camel@achilles>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 16:24 +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hrmpf, not sure. Since they're in a gen-java directory its pretty
> obvious what the story with them is, but CLILexer.java also misses a
> license header, which makes *me* whinge just enough to not give a +1,
> but that's also because I don't know much about the provenance of the
> codebase. You might get +1s from other folks, you did before, the
> files are there in the 0.3.x :)

None of the generated files contain license headers and my understanding
was that they were exempt from this, (and even the output of Rat seems
support this). Sebb's point was that they were included in the source
archive but are not checked into SVN (i.e. because they were generated
during release), which is certainly true.

I'm curious though, when you say "...which makes me whinge just enough
to not give a +1", is that hypothetical, or is there feedback that we
could incorporate so that you would actually vote for our release?

-- 
Eric Evans
eevans@rackspace.com