On 12 September 2013 21:52, Baptiste Mathus <m...@batmat.net> wrote: > 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?
It's not the case that SCM is only a convenience; the SCM locations are published to end-users on the web-site and in the POMs. And the SCM is anyway public. > In this case, Arnaud's point about only adding them at build time is really > valid here. Not sure what you are referring to here, but the build is not relevant to this discussion. > >> >> 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
