On 08/15/12 04:36, Gavin McDonald wrote:
Just wanted to refresh this so we got our own house in order.
:-)
http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat/rat-output.html shows 10 files without a
license.
We had at last check SIX (6) that were done on purpose for testing.
(http://ci.apache.org/projects/rat-master-summary.html shows this)
Of the 10 files noted I see:
Source.java is without license on purpose.
Empty.txt is without license on purpose.
FilterTest.cs has no license - can we add one safely here ?
My reading of [1] is that the test involves appending a license after
the binary bit at the start of the file
bad.txt is without license on purpose.
invoker.properties has no license - can we safely add one here?
I think so
Src.apt has a different license on purpose, we should leave this.
Verify.bsh has no license and we should add one.
Src.txt is without license on purpose.
Src.apt is without license on purpose.
Index.apt is without license on purpose.
Summary:
We now have SEVEN (7) that are without license header on purpose.
Two that possibly need license headers adding (FilterTest.cs
I think FilterTest is intentionally missing a header for test purposes
and invoker.properties)
+1
One that (imho) we should definitely add a license header to (verify.bsh)
+1
Opinions (I'm happy to fix all)
:-)
+1 for verify.bsh and invoker.properties
BTW would it make sense to allow Rat to pick up a configuration file
allowing a project to list known files intentionally missing a license
header...?
Robert
[1]
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf//creadur/rat/trunk/apache-rat-core/src/test/java/org/apache/rat/annotation/TestLicenceAppender.java
