I like this plan. * doesn't discourage new contributors * provides information for those who want to dig deeper
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:04 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems like a middle way would be: > > * always run the rat plugin > * configure it by default with ignoreErrors=true > * let committers / Jenkins / release managers et al. explicitly set > rat.ignoreErrors=false (in MAVEN_OPTS or wherever) > > By default, the plugin will warn about files lacking a license, but will > continue the build. Contributors are exposed to the check but not > constrained by it. Example: > > --- > [INFO] Rat check: Summary of files. Unapproved: 1 unknown: 1 generated: 0 > approved: 187 licence. > [WARNING] Rat check: 1 files with unapproved licenses. See RAT report in: > /Users/bhavanki/dev/accumulo/server/base/target/rat.txt > --- > > Any entity that should enforce licenses then needs to set the ignoreErrors > flag to false. This can be part of committer onboarding. > > Bill > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 6/17/14, 1:47 PM, Alex Moundalexis wrote: > > > >> This kind of response is hardly conducive to prospective contributors. > >> > >> We should consider ourselves lucky whenever a contributor provides a > >> patch, > >> let alone runs a build. Expecting a new contributor be fully aware of > the > >> Apache licensing details isn't realistic, much less being aware of the > >> arguments concerning Rat; if the ignoreErrors argument is TheWay, it > ought > >> to be mentioned prominently in the source documentation [1], but I don't > >> think that's correct either... > >> > >> I don't want to encourage contributors to skip the build. I want > >> contributors to be aware of the licensing requirements, but not at the > >> expense of providing otherwise-viable patches. I'd recommend relaxing > the > >> Rat checks for contributors, and making it a required part of the > profile > >> for automated Jenkins builds and during the release process. > >> > >> The onus should be on the committers to ensure that all of the licensing > >> is > >> in place before the release, but preferably long before that point by > >> guiding the contributor to make the necessary license additions before > the > >> commit. > >> > > > > This is an important thing to remember. The point of shepherding > > contributors is to eventually get them to committer status, at which > point > > they'll be personally responsible for these things. While we definitely > > don't want to be to abrasive initially that they get fed up and go away, > we > > can't fully insulate from the necessary either. > > > > > > > >> I've been told to correct whitespace at the end of a line before and to > >> re-submit a patch, seems trivial to address missing licensing files in > the > >> same way. > >> > >> [1] https://accumulo.apache.org/source.html > >> > >> > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >
