2013/9/12 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > > >> > -1 > >> > > >> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and > >> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That > >> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into > that, > >> but might tomorrow if someone doesn't beat me to it. > >> > >> The N&L files should also be present at the top-level of SCM. > >> That is not a release-blocker per se, however if they had been there > >> they would likely also be in the source archives at the top-level, > >> which is a release blocker IMO. > >> > > > > > > Like we already say I think we aren't convinced about this because it > will > > imply to recopy these files across ~50 projects (plugins, shared libs) > and > > thus update them the day we'll decide/need to do it. That's why we always > > prefered to bundle them at build time. > > The point is: > the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. > That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know > the what the license conditions are. >
Wasn't it explained that SCM is actually a convenience, and that only the released source tarballs would actually matter here? In this case, Arnaud's point about only adding them at build time is really valid here. > > The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured > they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the > primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. > In the source, but possibly different in many places and having to maintain their sameness, that's again Arnaud's point. As an external observer and a developer, not duplicating files in many places as they should really be the same seem quite a sound PMC choice to me.
