Thanks Roman for working on this.

If you feel a final answer will be ready next week, then yes by all means l would suggest to the community that we wait and re-spin an RC2 with the license headers issue resolved.  Seems less overhead and effort than a quick follow on release right after 1.10.  Also, there some momentum going with the legal discussion, so let's take advantage of that.

Satoshi (release manager), are you OK pausing the RC2 until we hear back from Roman next week?

Thank you,
Frank


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Frank McQuillan <fmcquillan@pivotal.io> wrote:
> Agree with Rahul re putting up an RC2 with the suggested changes from Roman,
> including incorporating Ed's comments on copyright year and top level folder
> naming.  These are really items but let's respond to the RC1 reviewers the
> best way we can.

+1 to a respin.

> Regarding the ASF legal issue being discussed, MADLib community is more than
> happy to respond to any guidance from the fine folks at the ASF around
> headers with appropriate licensing verbage.  We just need to know what that
> guidance is.

Well, if you're ok respinning next week I hope to get you a final
answer by then.
Might as well kill two birds with the same RC. Or we can quickly do a follow up
release once the licensing headers dust settles. Up to you guys.

Thanks,
Roman.