commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Checkstyle with LICENSE-header.txt vs. RAT
Date Thu, 26 May 2016 09:27:30 GMT
+1

However be aware it is not quite the same, as RAT also permits a license
header with different formatting/indenting, which could be seen as breaking
the visual style. :)
On 26 May 2016 7:41 a.m., "Benedikt Ritter" <britter@apache.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> Gary Gregory <garydgregory@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 25. Mai 2016 um
> 23:54:
>
> > Hi All:
> >
> > It would be nice if components would be consistent in their use
> > of Checkstyle with LICENSE-header.txt vs. RAT.
> >
> > Should we just forgo the use of LICENSE-header.txt and rely on RAT 100%?
> >
> > The following components contain a LICENSE-header.txt:
> >
> > commons-beanutils
> > commons-chain
> > commons-codec
> > commons-csv
> > commons-dbutils
> > commons-fileupload
> > commons-logging
> > commons-math4
> > commons-pool2
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > --
> > E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
> > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition
> > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
> > Home: http://garygregory.com/
> > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
> >
>

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