On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
[snip]
> Apache Felix is using those as well, I think?
>
> They may well do but TLP don’t always get things 100% right (the lucerne
> NOTICE file for instance) so IMO we should try and work what is the right
> hing to do here.
>
I've filled:
FWIW, some build and test processes have a "generate-sources" and/or
"generate-test-sources" step. Have you considered having a step in your
test processes copy the source test files into a temporary folder and
remove the headers as part of that step? Then you may not need to change
the test ha
OK, makes sense, thanks for these insights and ideas.
Gj
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> wrote:
>
>>...
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml
>> This is what line 2
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
>...
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml
> This is what line 2105 says:
> ...
Maybe grouping those exclusions by families would make it easier for
reviewers to understand them: first the one
Well, it's been a comment there, e.g., see line 2105 here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/master/nbbuild/build.xml
This is what line 2105 says:
Indeed, we will pull out those exclusions into a separate file[1],
however, as can be seen, that comment is already there.
You're
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
wrote:
> ...we propose that we add a line to the README that says:
> "*/test/*/data folders contain test data and therefore may have no
> license headers"
I would prefer for that info to be added as comments in the file that
defines the RAT e
We have created one of many[1] issues dedicated to data files in
*/test/*data folders.
The point is that these are all data files, used by our tests, and if
license headers were to be added the tests would fail.
E.g., some tests make use of a position in the file, which would be
different (and wr
Hi,
> Thanks. I'll look at how to include that. I assume the usual conditions
> apply, i.e. that the license and notice in each jar should only refer to
> what's in the jar, right? (As a consequence the content might differ among
> modules in general.)
Yes that the case. See the guiding principle
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I guess I originally misunderstood the requirements here - I though that
> > these only need to be in the top-level of a release (we are not releasing
> > the jars separatelly). Should be fairly easy to add those to jars the
> > Ne
