Also, if those don't full under the category of "non-creative", I don't know what does. =)
A. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > Ok, the META-INF/services stuff will need at least test changes to work > right with license headers added, if not full blown code changes, so that > won't be happening. > > A. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Will do. >> >> A. >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Tom White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I ran through basic checks on the source packages (checksums, >>> signatures, license headers, included binary files, LICENSE, NOTICE, >>> DISCLAIMER), and generally they look good. In addition to the points >>> made on >>> https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues, >>> the only thing I would add is that RAT flags up lots of missing >>> license headers. Many of them are JSON which can be excluded since >>> JSON doesn't support comments (as discussed above), or tests, but the >>> META-INF/services, YAML, XML, and properties files should have license >>> headers added for RC3 if possible. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tom >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > David, have you had a chance to take a look at my comments about the >>> > json stuff? http://markmail.org/message/pk7efsmc6ewmake7 >>> > >>> > I've also noted my doubts on the wiki so the conclusions for each one >>> > can be reflected there. >>> > >>> > On 5 June 2013 23:07, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> Dealt with for RC3, and noted on >>> >> https://wiki.apache.org/jclouds/1.6.1%20Incubating%20Release%20Issues >>> >> >>> >> A. >>> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:40 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] >>> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > I'm extending the vote another 24 hours for our mentors to respond. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > A. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> jclouds-karaf has both LICENSE and LICENSE.txt and I'd argue that >>> >>> LICENSE.txt should be purged. Aside from that it looks in good shape. >>> >>> >>> >>> --David >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
