On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > This was what I looked at: *http://s.apache.org/hPL <http://s.apache.org/hPL>* Niall > > 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. >
