creadur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject Re: Creadur project RAT failures
Date Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:16:17 GMT
On 08/15/12 04:36, Gavin McDonald wrote:
> Just wanted to refresh this so we got our own house in order.

:-)

> http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat/rat-output.html shows 10 files without a
> license.
>
> We had at last check SIX (6) that were done on purpose for testing.
>
> (http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html shows this)
>
> Of the 10 files noted I see:
>
> Source.java is without license on purpose.
> Empty.txt is without license on purpose.
> FilterTest.cs has no license - can we add one safely here ?

My reading of [1] is that the test involves appending a license after 
the binary bit at the start of the file

> bad.txt is without license on purpose.
> invoker.properties has no license - can we safely add one here?

I think so

> Src.apt has a different license on purpose, we should leave this.
> Verify.bsh has no license and we should add one.
> Src.txt is without license on purpose.
> Src.apt is without license on purpose.
> Index.apt is without license on purpose.
>
> Summary:
>
> We now have SEVEN (7) that are without license header on purpose.
> Two that possibly need license headers adding (FilterTest.cs

I think FilterTest is intentionally missing a header for test purposes

> and invoker.properties)

+1

> One that (imho) we should definitely add a license header to (verify.bsh)

+1

> Opinions (I'm happy to fix all)

:-)

+1 for verify.bsh and invoker.properties

BTW would it make sense to allow Rat to pick up a configuration file 
allowing a project to list known files intentionally missing a license 
header...?

Robert

[1] 
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf//creadur/rat/trunk/apache-rat-core/src/test/java/org/apache/rat/annotation/TestLicenceAppender.java

Mime
View raw message