incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache HAWQ (incubating) 2.0.0.0-incubating Release
Date Tue, 09 Aug 2016 20:27:55 GMT
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark
>> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look weir enough.
>
> Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?

For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable changes
to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as
well fit in that
category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid
modifying the headers.

If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of
Kudu, and I'd
like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified upstream code that Kudu
settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z

If you feel like HAWQ's case is somehow different from Kudu -- I'd love to know
more.

> The issue with rat exclusions is that I find they tend to be made too wide and than at
some point fail to capture something important.

Agreed and if you can advise us on how to make sure that
we tag certain files as coming 100% verbatim from PG in a very
visible way -- I'd be more than happy to do that. For now, the only
place I can see for doing that is LICENSE with a full list of file names
(without any kind of wildcards). This will make LICENSE somewhat big,
but I think it should be ok.

Will this work?

Thanks,
Roman.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message