We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release - be prepared for that.
A. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]>wrote: > Ignasi, > > I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip > comments inside scriptbuilder. > > -A > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand > > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to > > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the > > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with > > the license headers at random parts. > > > > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and > > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something > > broken, or something that did not get properly generated. > > > > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like > > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments. > > > > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > > > cool. thanks > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with > scriptbuilder > > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me > > being as > > >> far as we go. > > >> > > >> A. > > >> > > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected] > > >> >wrote: > > >> > > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual > > explanations :) > > >> > > > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking > > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm > > going > > >> to > > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have > to > > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers. > > >> > > > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script > > fragments) > > >> in > > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests. > > >> > > > >> > -A > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer < > [email protected] > > >> > >wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet > > RAT > > >> > > checks. > > >> > > > > >> > > A. > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole < > > >> [email protected]> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > Hi, all. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > per > > >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286 > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which > generates > > >> > shell > > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers > > in > > >> the > > >> > > > past > > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the > > resulting > > >> > > shell > > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers > > inlined. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot); > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license > > headers > > >> to > > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but > also > > >> that > > >> > > it > > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if > we > > >> added > > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything > > that > > >> > uses > > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to > > >> write > > >> > > code > > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 > > instance > > >> > > data, > > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, > such > > as > > >> > > shell > > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -A > > >> > > > > > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable > requires a > > >> > > > license header. > > >> > > > There is an exception, namely: > > >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions > > >> > > > > > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might > agree > > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above > > exception, > > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC > members) > > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you > (or > > >> the > > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses > > headers > > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a > short > > >> form > > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines > > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at > > that > > >> > > > thread and at links from that file. > > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2 > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --David > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
