And there are a good number of tests failing because XML files aren't expected to have headers. I'll see what I can do.
A. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
