On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 03:52:25PM -0500, David Nalley wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Builds are continuing to fail right now... Due to the check-in of the >>>>>> .po files. >>>>>> >>>>>> The offending issues can be seen in the Rat report here: >>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/cloudstack-rat-master/744/artifact/target/rat.txt >>>>>> >>>>>> Do folks think that we should (1) correct them, or (2) exclude them from >>>>>> reporting? I'm not familiar enough with their lifecycle to know what >>>>>> the right answer is. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They should be corrected IMO. >>>>> >>>>> --David >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sebastien, >>>> >>>> As our self appointed "Master of Translation", do you mind doing the >>>> honors? >>>> >>>> -chip >>> >>> The .pot files are generated automatically by publican. >>> >>> Sorry I totally missed that they did not have Apache license headers. >>> >>> You want me to revert the commit ? never done it. >>> >>> -sebastien >>> >> >> Why not just add the license header to them? >> >> --David > > I will do that, but I don't know what it will do with transifex…when we push > ... > > we will have the same issue with the .po files (there are a few in the > runbook branch right now). > > >
It does nothing with transifex - look at the .pot files for the runbook - and iirc if you send up pot files with license, po files will keep it - but I may be misremembering. --David
