+1 However be aware it is not quite the same, as RAT also permits a license header with different formatting/indenting, which could be seen as breaking the visual style. :) On 26 May 2016 7:41 a.m., "Benedikt Ritter" <brit...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 > > Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 25. Mai 2016 um > 23:54: > > > Hi All: > > > > It would be nice if components would be consistent in their use > > of Checkstyle with LICENSE-header.txt vs. RAT. > > > > Should we just forgo the use of LICENSE-header.txt and rely on RAT 100%? > > > > The following components contain a LICENSE-header.txt: > > > > commons-beanutils > > commons-chain > > commons-codec > > commons-csv > > commons-dbutils > > commons-fileupload > > commons-logging > > commons-math4 > > commons-pool2 > > > > Gary > > > > -- > > E-Mail: garydgreg...@gmail.com | ggreg...@apache.org > > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > >
