accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Moundalexis <al...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:11:31 GMT
I like this plan.

* doesn't discourage new contributors
* provides information for those who want to dig deeper

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
wrote:

> It seems like a middle way would be:
>
> * always run the rat plugin
> * configure it by default with ignoreErrors=true
> * let committers / Jenkins / release managers et al. explicitly set
> rat.ignoreErrors=false (in MAVEN_OPTS or wherever)
>
> By default, the plugin will warn about files lacking a license, but will
> continue the build. Contributors are exposed to the check but not
> constrained by it. Example:
>
> ---
> [INFO] Rat check: Summary of files. Unapproved: 1 unknown: 1 generated: 0
> approved: 187 licence.
> [WARNING] Rat check: 1 files with unapproved licenses. See RAT report in:
> /Users/bhavanki/dev/accumulo/server/base/target/rat.txt
> ---
>
> Any entity that should enforce licenses then needs to set the ignoreErrors
> flag to false. This can be part of committer onboarding.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 6/17/14, 1:47 PM, Alex Moundalexis wrote:
> >
> >> This kind of response is hardly conducive to prospective contributors.
> >>
> >> We should consider ourselves lucky whenever a contributor provides a
> >> patch,
> >> let alone runs a build. Expecting a new contributor be fully aware of
> the
> >> Apache licensing details isn't realistic, much less being aware of the
> >> arguments concerning Rat; if the ignoreErrors argument is TheWay, it
> ought
> >> to be mentioned prominently in the source documentation [1], but I don't
> >> think that's correct either...
> >>
> >> I don't want to encourage contributors to skip the build. I want
> >> contributors to be aware of the licensing requirements, but not at the
> >> expense of providing otherwise-viable patches. I'd recommend relaxing
> the
> >> Rat checks for contributors, and making it a required part of the
> profile
> >> for automated Jenkins builds and during the release process.
> >>
> >> The onus should be on the committers to ensure that all of the licensing
> >> is
> >> in place before the release, but preferably long before that point by
> >> guiding the contributor to make the necessary license additions before
> the
> >> commit.
> >>
> >
> > This is an important thing to remember. The point of shepherding
> > contributors is to eventually get them to committer status, at which
> point
> > they'll be personally responsible for these things. While we definitely
> > don't want to be to abrasive initially that they get fed up and go away,
> we
> > can't fully insulate from the necessary either.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I've been told to correct whitespace at the end of a line before and to
> >> re-submit a patch, seems trivial to address missing licensing files in
> the
> >> same way.
> >>
> >> [1] https://accumulo.apache.org/source.html
> >>
> >>
>
>
> --
> // Bill Havanki
> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
> // 443.686.9283
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message