Hi - Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 11, 2017, at 12:22 PM, Matteo Merli <mme...@apache.org> wrote: > > Thanks for checking, I've added replies inline: > >> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 4:09 PM John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> - you may want review your rat excludes and figure out if you are excluding >> too much (several paths couldn't be found in the source release OR do in >> fact have ASF headers, possibly incorrectly). You may specifically want to >> double check your protobufs. >> > > What do you mean exactly for protobuf checks? I think there is one protobuf > file which is being excluded, even though the file is not actually > distributed but rather generated during build process. > > I think our main misunderstanding is on whether the generated files (target > directory, log files, generated Makefiles, etc) should not be included in > RAT excludes. If the expectation is to run RAT only on a "clean" copy of > the source distribution, then we'll very happily remove all the exclusions. > > >> - Ideally your .md files and other files owned by the project would in fact >> have the ASF headers on them. >> > > Sure, we didn't add the headers initially because I was thinking that was > not possible to have comments in the the Markdown format (actually, just > verified that <!-- comment --> syntax works) and the fact that they aren't > included in the src distribution, but rather just published on the website. > I've created an issue for this: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-pulsar/issues/818 > > >> - For the binary dist, the license file has an irrelevant header. Is it >> from the original source? >> > > There are few source files which we have included in our source repository. > For these files we have added a section in the LICENSE files to clarify. My > understanding was that this is required in the source distribution LICENSE > file. I wasn't 100% sure about the bin distribution LICENSE file so I have > left it there as well. > If these LICENSE headers are not needed there, we'll remove them. > > > >> Something else to consider. One of the things we like to see here at >> Apache is intermingling of projects. I see you're using a number of >> projects from other locations that actually have equivalents here at Apache >> (Jetty, Jersey to name a couple), while licensing is OK do you see any >> potential roadmap for swapping them out? >> > > These are very good points. We haven't really thought about that but we > will start a discussion on the dev list to make an assessment of the > changes and reach a consensus within the community. I don’t necessarily agree with John about this. Highly visible projects like Lucene switched from Tomcat to Jetty with Solr 6. As long as the license is category A changing dependencies should only be a high priority if there is a technical advantage. Regards, Dave > > > Thank you, > Matteo > > > -- > Matteo Merli > <mme...@apache.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
