I've fixed the missing / bad ASF headers and use the new maven plugin to generate LICENSE/NOTICE file.
On 12/18/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Dec 18, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > On 12/18/06, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Dec 18, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >> > I'm starting a vote to release XBean 2.8. >> > There has not been much changes since 2.7, but a few >> > bugs fixed, and the addition of the xbean-finder module. >> > Anyway, the bugs are important enough to deserver a new >> > release (the generated schemas can not be validated). >> > >> > [ ] +1 Start xbean 2.8 release process >> > [ ] +/- 0 >> > [ ] -1 Don't release xbean 2.8 now >> > >> > Here's my +1. >> >> Not sure what you mean by "release process". > > Running "mvn release:prepare release:perform" ;) > >> But here are the issues >> which look like they would block a release: >> >> 1. NOTICE files do not conform to current ASF standards > > What do you mean exactly ? > They have the same content that the ones I've always seen. > Could you point me to a better template for these ? Hi Guillaume, Yes, they've changed slightly... Source files no longer contain a copyright statement. Copyright is now in the notice file. Here's a pointer to the current "standards" -- http://www.apache.org/legal/src- headers.html Notice files take the following form: Apache [PRODUCT_NAME] Copyright [yyyy] The Apache Software Foundation This product includes software developed at The Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/). I don't see any external projects being included in xbean binaries. So, it would seem that's the only content that the NOTICE files would require. I took a peak at the generated jar files. Looks like license/notice files are missing from at least the following jar file: xbean-naming Genesis will automatically check for these during a build. Dain (I think) had a one line command to scan for missing notice/license files, but I can't remember how it went... > >> 2. The following files either do not contain a valid license header >> (not all files will require one, but many of these need one) or have >> an out-of-date license header (all need to be updated). > > Thanks. I'll fix these asap. > You run rat for that, right ? Yes, but rat doesn't identify old-style license headers. For these, I've found the following grep command to be useful: grep -RL --include=*.java "Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)" * --kevan
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet
