incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Date Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:10:16 GMT
On 11/11/12 03:10, Olemis Lang wrote:
> On 11/10/12, Branko ─îibej <> wrote:
>> On 10.11.2012 14:39, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>> Apologies for the delay, the conference wifi was taken down before I
>>> could
>>> send the e-mail.
>>> Unfortunately, when I ran a license header check, the report came back
>>> with some minified css & js files in the source release.  As far as I am
>>> aware, minified files are not considered source and therefore should not
>>> be in the distribution.
> [...]
>> Regarding the minified files you found: I agree that minification
>> should, in future, be part of the installation process.
> Maybe that belongs in installer script [1]_ ? Should we have a ticket for that ?

Well, minification makes debugging a pain so I am not in a hurry for 
this at the moment.

>> However, once
>> can hardly claim that minified files are "not source". They are souce,
>> not even compressed. IMO the point of having source releases is
>> auditability. Minification makes it harder, but doesn't take it away
>> (as, for example, compilation does).
> I've detected one such minified file in Bloodhound code .
>     bloodhound_theme/bhtheme/htdocs/js/jquery-1.7.1.min.js
> We have to remove it . We don't even use it .


>     doc/html-templates/js/jquery-1.7.2.min.js
> OTOH , this one should not be included in source tarball . Even if
> it's already in the repos it's not a deliverable .

Well, there is not really much point in providing minified versions of 
js or css under the doc/ path. I suggest the following files are 
replaced with full fat source, whether or not they are included in the 


> However I suppose some others are found under /trac folder ... isn't
> it ? Well , if that is the case they should be js files consisting in
> external dependencies to the Trac project and , if that is the case
> then that's not a major issue since we can include jQuery et al .
> source files for next release . Nonetheless , I think I need to ask
> ...
> Q:
>    - In RAT reports, can we just ignore everything under trac/ folder ?

I did not spot any minified css or js under the trac folder.

Is it actually appropriate to just ignore these files? I would prefer it 
if there was a way to determine whether these files have the expected 
BSD headers so that we can keep an eye on these files too.

>> I propose this is not a release blocker.
> fwiw I think the same . Besides there should be a way to check that
> minified js files are valid ( MD5 checksums ? ... )
>> We should however recommend
>> that the project stops shipping minified sources in some (near) future
>> release.
> next release , yes ... In any case there are some tickets requiring us
> to move forward with jQuery 1.8 , jQuery UI 1.9 , Bootstrap 2.1.1 (at
> least) ...

I would hope that the promise to fix these issues in time for the next 
release is enough to stop this being a blocking issue for the current 


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