Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of mcintyre.a@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.170 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=s9umav3UHNqmyoLPkR2cB6IYSYhSIR+WbrIWWO8ZetRNIzIL42tYou3gVShZKzhgqn06UXUX2K+KQ0luUUm/EwkeBj1tSn5virTPKwwuAunW6j/oHAfpK/6B7WEBc6/QGdqafmzUy9HLCKViQsf73dm5c5H9+zmbG1hdYPnEuGU=
Message-ID: <54ac72d70706141923j347a2a21rafb430536a597202@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:23:58 -0700
From: "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyre.a@gmail.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: derby trunk needs header cleanup
In-Reply-To: <c25576af0706141443q103bfc36t7c95a8e7b7853ef1@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4670B011.1070807@bristowhill.com>
	 <c25576af0706141034m29c52b6cv2d10c76466952fde@mail.gmail.com>
	 <46717FC6.2050408@bristowhill.com>
	 <c25576af0706141443q103bfc36t7c95a8e7b7853ef1@mail.gmail.com>

On 6/14/07, Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunteren@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I dig through the comments in DERBY-1377, it appears Andrew
> actually handled the ij/.sql scripts.
> It doesn't explain why the *subsql, *sql1 and sql2 were skipped.
> Maybe because they don't work by themselves?
> Or oversight?

I don't think the tool complained about filetypes that it didn't know
about. I see that situation has improved. This goes into the oversight
bin. It just wasn't on the radar.

Some of those .subsql definitely qualify as creative works, like
tests/store/updatesetlocks,subsql, others don't (in my eye), like
tests/lang/createTestProcedures.subsql

> Also, there are explanatoryfiles for instance, README.txt - does that
> need a header?

Yes, these qualify. We gave all the ones that existed at the time of
last release the header. If there are new ones that don't have it,
they need it.

> How about all the .properties files in the old test harness
> directories, was it decided those were not 'source' files in their own
> right?

In most cases, they don't qualify. There are some that do qualify,
though, like metadata.properties. Comments are safely ignored in
properties files, so the header should be added to all the properties
files to be safe.

> How about .policy?

Same as with properties, most won't qualify. Some, like
derby_tests.policy will. Probably best to update them all and be
covered.

HTH,
andrew