Regarding 2 (gradle), thank you for the reference. I will open a JIRA for it. Do we have to credit bigtop or can we just take the file as is?
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Ting(Goden) Yao <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just tagged "2.0.0-beta-incubating-RC2" based on latest commit: > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-hawq/commit/b6cb39c37e83fb5ee542b9f953c3a5e28e4617eb > > This looks *much* better than RC1. Great progress, team! > > Still a few things are left that need to be addressed: > 0. Content of tools/bin/pythonSrc doesn't look good to me. > There's GPL stuff in there that absolutely MUST be purged > from our repo. There are a few things under MIT and BSD > licenses in there as well, but since you will have to come up > with a solution for GPL archives you may as well get rid of > all of them. > > 1. netperf-2.4.3.tar.gz needs to be removed. It is under a specific > license from HP and we can't carry it in the tarball release of HAWQ > > 2. I still think that we need to get rid of Gradle jar. In order to > solve > boostraping problem you can either use the approach Bigtop is taking: > https://github.com/apache/bigtop/blob/master/gradlew#L18 > (just replace your gradelw with Bigtop's). Or you can mandate Gradle. > > 3. I really appreciate RAT integration, but looking at the exclude list > I don't think the following belongs there: > <exclude>**/*.mk</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.mak</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.yaml</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.m4</exclude> > <exclude>config/*</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.rc</exclude> > <exclude>**/*.f</exclude> > <exclude>**/Makefile*</exclude> > Instead of wholesale exclusion like that I'd like to see exclusion > based on > subtrees of the source tree. IOW, if a file that matches one of the > above > masks comes from PG just mark it so and mark a folder. Excluding a whole > class of files based on extension makes RAT less useful in the future. > > 4. In general, I'd like to see the exclude list for RAT be more > structured > and concise. It is currently 446 entries long and pretty much impossible > to review properly. > > Thanks, > Roman. >
