river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Frank Barnaby <Frank.Barn...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: JSTK import (Was: Short term plan forward... (proposal))
Date Wed, 30 May 2007 01:46:56 GMT

On May 28, 2007, at 10:44 AM, Mark Brouwer wrote:

> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 5/25/07, Jim Hurley <Jim.Hurley@sun.com> wrote:
>>> We are going to get the starter kit contribution bundle attached  
>>> today.
>> Saw it on RIVER-28. Thanks for all the background work on this, I'm
>> really excited to see the code coming in!
>>> Assuming folks have a chance to check it out over the next few days,
>>> I'd like to start an acceptance vote on it early next week.
>> I'm flying back to Finland from New York this weekend so I don't have
>> much time to look at it in more detail, but based on a quick overview
>> the import looks great.
>> Some comments:
>> * The "Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc." text should not be
>> included in the license headers. The copyright is of course still
>> Sun's, but the policy is to put all such copyright notices in the
>> NOTICE file. The standard license header is copyright-agnostic on
>> purpose to allow equal contributions from multiple different  
>> copyright
>> holders. See http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers for
>> more details. You can just note on the issue that it is OK to move  
>> the
>> copyright notices to the NOTICE file once the code is in svn if it's
>> difficult to produce a modified version of the source zip.
>> * The LICENSE and NOTICE files should be included at the root of the
>> source tree. A README would also be nice. We can add those once the
>> code is in svn.
>> As a personal preference it would be nice if the license header was
>> folded at 80 characters (see below), but it's probably not worth the
>> effort to change that.
> I come to the same observations as Jukka. Given the JTSK code base of
> honoring 80 chars/line max I would suggest to take exactly the same
> license header as the ServiceUI code has.
> I hope running the license header update script can be run again  
> without
> too much effort.
> Although I don't consider this to be essential for accepting the  
> import,
> but I tried to build from the import and I was not successful with
> generating the javadoc as it appears to complain about an Illegal
> package name, likely this is due to the modification of the copyright
> notice, although I couldn't see a mistake that quickly. I did shorten
> the api-copyright attribute to only "Licensed" and then it works.

I had tested the javadoc target after changing the headers and api- 
attribute, and my build worked well and continues to work well now.   
platform did you use for your build?


View raw message