lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] 0.3.0 release prep
Date Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:27:51 GMT
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 09:38:03PM -0600, Peter Karman wrote:
> I am starting the prep for the 0.3.0 release. The first step is to confirm that
> the RAT report passes:
> It looks like a bunch of files are missing the Apache License, many of them
> the start of the C implementation, but also a bunch of .gitignore files. I
> can add the license header to the c/ files.  Does it make sense to have the
> .gitignore files include a license? Can we tell RAT to ignore the ignore
> files?
Ignoring the .gitignore files is fine -- just add them to

Adding CONTRIBUTING to rat-excludes is fine as well. 

There's also install-sh, which has an MIT/X11 license.  It will be necessary
to add the text of that license to LICENSE.

> For the c/ files, since that is just the stub of the tip of the beginning of a
> start for that code, do we even want it in the release?

IMO: yes.  Canonical release tarballs should be snapshots from the VCS.
Things get annoyingly complicated if you deviate from that.

If we don't want something in an official release, we should develop it on a
branch.  That will be more straightforward once we switch to Git in a few

> Could/should files be removed from a branch if they do not represent
> 'finished' product? I realize this last is a philosophical as well as
> practical question.

I don't think it matters much.  All of the 0.2.x releases have had a ruby/
dir containing useless in-progress code; nobody complained.

Marvin Humphrey

View raw message