accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <>
Subject Re: moving rat to a profile?
Date Tue, 17 Jun 2014 21:04:03 GMT
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:

Any entity that should enforce licenses then needs to set the ignoreErrors
flag to false. This can be part of committer onboarding.


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Josh Elser <> 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]

// Bill Havanki
// Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions
// 443.686.9283

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