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 eev...@rackspace.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
