Yep My personal opinion is that these files in scm is silly.
I didn't want to bias you before you had a chance to state your own opinion W.r.t notice files for binaries. Because the binary *includes* dependent jar files, whereas the source in general does not, there will typically be different NOTICE files for each. As we have relicensed resolver pure, it should be just: ALv2 for source. It would get more complex if we actually had forked some code under a license that requires a NOTICE. But where all code in source is ALv2 and "clean" we probably don't even need to Notice file in the scm from the notice file strict interpretation legal heads On Tue 17 Jan 2017 at 03:30, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> wrote: > Le lundi 16 janvier 2017, 08:10:58 CET Stephen Connolly a écrit : > > > There is a divergence of opinion from legal. > > > > > > Some view even SCM as a distribution so we'd need the files at the root > of > > > every git repo and in every SVN checkout "root" > > > > > > Others view this as madness and argue that we don't need these files in > SCM > > > (except for *source* NOTICE files or binary NOTICE files where we use > those > > > to generate the binary distribution) > > I don't understand the exception > > > > > > > > I filed some LEGAL issues when I was chair to try and resolve the issue. > > > Last time I checked there had been no resolution > > ok, I see (even if I don't find precisely the JIRA issue) > > > > then if we look at our current Maven practice: in our ~100 release roots, > we > > don't have such files in general in scm but just in build process > > > > and: > > - there are a few LICENSE.txt or NOTICE.txt, which cause strange release > > source distribution result: see maven-archetype for example > > - generated NOTICE contains accurate date, where date in manually > maintained > > NOTICE.txt in scm is not up to date > > - I'm not clear on when to add more information in manual NOTICE than what > is > > just generated (ie. This product includes software developed at The Apache > > Software Foundation: when does a release contain more than software > developed > > at ASF?) > > > > I'm not in favour of adding these files one after the other. > > > > I won't do it myself in Maven Artifact Resolver: staying with our current > > general practice > > > > Regards, > > > > Hervé > > > > > > > > On Mon 16 Jan 2017 at 07:36, Hervé BOUTEMY <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > back to a discussion we had some time ago, and I'm not clear on the > > > > definitive > > > > > > > > conclusion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the question: > > > > > > > > since NOTICE and LICENSE files are automatically added to the source > > > > > > > > distribution archive (through > apache-source-release-assembly-descriptor), > > > > do > > > > > > > > we need to manually maintain a copy of these files in scm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I look at current scm content, for the vast majority of > components, > > > > we > > > > > > > > didn't copy files and rely on > apache-source-release-assembly-descriptor. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personnally, I don't see the interest in copying files in scm. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hervé > > > > > > > > Le lundi 16 janvier 2017, 04:02:42 CET Christian Schulte a écrit : > > > > > Am 01/15/17 um 20:34 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I reworked history, starting from 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT, and applying only > > > > > > > > > > > > renaming but absolutely no code change. > > > > > > > > > > Please review and confirm that this branch is ok to merge to > master: > > > > then > > > > > > > > > > I'll launch the release process for Maven Artifact Resolver 1.0.3. > > > > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRESOLVER%20AND > > > > % > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20fixVersion%20%3D%20%22Maven%20Artifact%20Resolver%201.2.0%22%20ORDER%20B > > > > Y%> > > > > > 20key%20ASC%2C%20priority%20DESC> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe MRESOLVER-1 needs to be updated to 1.0.3? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Sent from my phone > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > -- Sent from my phone
