On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:45 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:27 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 > > No you are right, that's how it looks like in the runbook branch (nothing to > do there) > All fixed now on master and 4.1
