On Nov 16, 2007 1:48 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>
> > On Nov 16, 2007 2:36 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Would it be reasonable to expect that a file called CHANGES contains
> >> implied conten
On Nov 16, 2007 2:48 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know what configuring an exception means...
The Ant and Maven plugins allow to configure files, which are not
being inspected by RAT.
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you break '
On Nov 16, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 2:36 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Would it be reasonable to expect that a file called CHANGES contains
implied content?
I do not know what you mean by "implied"
I meant that CHANGES can be assumed to b
On Nov 16, 2007 2:36 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be reasonable to expect that a file called CHANGES contains
> implied content?
I do not know what you mean by "implied", but in the most cases I am
aware of, the CHANGES file is typically something on which RAT should
I notice in the Tuscany SCA RAT report:
!? 1.0.1-RC5a/distribution/src/main/release/CHANGES
Would it be reasonable to expect that a file called CHANGES contains
implied content?
Regards,
Craig
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5
