As mentioned in BVAL-62, we are passing RAT. We switched to the
apache-rat-plugin on Monday as part of the BVAL-58 changes contributed
by David Jencks. Since most projects are still using the codehaus
version, you maven run may be finding that one instead, so try -
mvn clean apache-rat:check
And you should see the excludes get applied -
[INFO] [clean:clean {execution: default-clean}]
[INFO] [apache-rat:check {execution: default-cli}]
[INFO] Exclude: **/javax.validation.spi.ValidationProvider
[INFO] Exclude: README.txt
[INFO] Exclude: CHANGES.txt
[INFO] Exclude: **/.*/**
[INFO] Exclude: **/*.ftl
[INFO] Exclude: **/*.iml
[INFO] Exclude: **/*.log
[INFO] Exclude: **/maven-eclipse.xml
[INFO] Exclude: **/rat.txt
[INFO] Exclude: **/target/**/*
-Donald
On 5/26/10 5:00 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> 1st: Yes, I'd second that you all do a _very_ good job.
>
> 2nd: But we really also need to take care about those nifty little
> intellectual property rules! I know this just stinks from a technical pov,
> but it's really important. And since there have been a few problems recently,
> there is currently high attention on such things.
>
> There is currently a discussion over at [email protected] whether we will force rat
> runs on all incubation projects. So we really should pass rat
> _automatically_. Best bet is to enable it in our package phase.
>
> Also, there is no shame dropping a release! This happens pretty frequently
> (just look into the [email protected] archive). Usually there are good reasons
> if someone votes a -1 on a release - and all projects I know just suspend the
> vote until the vetoing member either got convinced to recall his veto or the
> problem got resolved.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Wed, 5/26/10, Carlos Vara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From: Carlos Vara <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Apache Bean Validation 0.1-incubating Release
>> Candidate
>> To: [email protected]
>> Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 8:45 AM
>> Hi,
>>
>> - does "mvn rat:check" pass on the source
>>>
>>
>> After the problem with
>> javax.validation.spi.ValidationProvider has been
>> clarified, only bean-infos-json.ftl fails. I'm not familiar
>> with ftl files
>> so I don't know if they should have the license.
>>
>>
>>> - can you build the source-release.zip and svn tag
>>>
>>
>> Both build OK.
>>
>>
>>> - do all of the staged jars/zips contain the required
>> LICENSE, NOTICE
>>> and DISCLAIMER files
>>>
>>
>> bval-parent-0.1-incubating-source-release.zip contains all
>> the files.
>> Produced JARs when installing all have LICENSE and NOTICE
>> files. I think
>> they don't need the DISCLAIMER one.
>>
>>
>>> - are all of the staged jars signed and the signature
>> verifiable
>>>
>>
>> Verified signature and hashes of zip and pom files. All
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>> - is the signing key in the project's KEYS file and on
>> a public server
>>>
>>
>> It's on svn which is public for reading.
>>
>>
>>> - does the release pass the TCK
>>>
>>
>> Staged release passes incontainer and standalone tests
>> here. I also checked
>> with my project, and its test suite runs fine using this
>> version.
>>
>> So, unless "bean-infos-json.ftl" really needs the license
>> header, +1
>>
>> Good job these lasts days Donald!
>>
>
>
>
>
