Fix 1.1.0 rc1 issues

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 62.39%. Comparing base (483819a) to head (10643ca).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## rc/1.1 #283 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 62.39% 62.39% ======================================= Files 419 419 Lines 27602 27602 Branches 3598 3598 ======================================= Hits 17222 17222 Misses 10041 10041 Partials 339 339 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[chrisdutz]

The Gorilla and Chimp files ... do we have a software-grant for them? If not we should have the original file-header on them. It seems that the author used no header, then we should probably change the headers in these files to this one:

Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at

    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.

[chrisdutz]

However ... seeing that the files in there are greatly different from the ones in the original repo ... one might argue that it's ok to leave our own headers in there.

[HTHou]

The Gorilla and Chimp files ... do we have a software-grant for them?

For Chimp, absolute yes. The Chimp code in TsFile was actually contributed by the author. See https://github.com/apache/iotdb/pull/8766 and https://www.linkedin.com/posts/apache-iotdb_apacheiotdb-activity-7026131776376860672-eVFI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

As for gorilla, I don't think so. So, we need to change some headers, right?

[HTHou]

However ... seeing that the files in there are greatly different from the ones in the original repo ... one might argue that it's ok to leave our own headers in there.

ok, so we are good now?

[chrisdutz]

I think so