+1, drop Checkstyle license checks. We need the RAT report for the site, so using Checkstyle as well is wasted effort.
On 26 May 2016 at 10:27, Stian Soiland-Reyes <st...@apache.org> wrote: > +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 >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
