On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Niall Pemberton <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 1:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Dan Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> > If it really comes to it, we could optimize the xml files as part of the >> > build process. So the checked in code would have the comments, >> formatting, >> > etc. but the version in the jar would be stripped. >> >> I think this is the bare minimum that could be acceptable. >> > > Seems very strange to remove license headers from whats actually released - > the opposite of what I would have said.
Dan was talking about producing binary convenience artifacts. The source release will retain the headers everywhere. > I assume were talking about the jgroups-config.xml and jgroups-mcast.xml > files? I looked at them and I for me these would definitely come under the > "a file without any degree of creativity" category. Hm. Perhaps I was looking at a wrong thing. Bruce, Dan, could you please provide URLs to all the files that you'd like NOT to have license headers on so we can all be on the same page wrt. what we're talking about? Thanks, Roman.
