incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Martin <gary.mar...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Bloodhound 0.2 (incubating)
Date Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:25:34 GMT
On 12/11/12 11:10, Gary Martin wrote:
> On 11/11/12 03:10, Olemis Lang wrote:
>> On 11/10/12, Branko ─îibej<brane@apache.org>  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 .
>
> Agreed.
>
>>     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 
> tarball:
>
>     ./doc/html-templates/css/bootstrap-responsive.min.css
>     ./doc/html-templates/css/bootstrap.min.css
>     ./doc/html-templates/js/jquery-1.7.2.min.js
>     ./doc/html-templates/js/bootstrap.min.js
>
>
>> 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 
> release.
>
> Cheers,
>     Gary


OK, when I looked closer at the Trac files it seems that they do minify 
some of it after all. Are we happy to maintain this as another 
difference between our copy of Trac and upstream?

Cheers,
     Gary

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