Good point. Our rat is too aggressive.

Gj

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Dave Schoorl <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> It is great that the number of problematic files decreases drastically,
> but I noticed that some of the files, E.g. in api.annotations.common, the
> file under META-INF/service contains a (non-Apache) license header.
> Excluding them from Rat will leave those old (Oracle) headers present,
> wouldn't it?
>
> How should we deal with that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave
>
>
> >
> >     Op 25 september 2017 om 12:36 schreef Geertjan Wielenga <
> [email protected]>:
> >
> >     When these are added to the exclusions:
> >
> >     <exclude name="**/*.pass" />
> >
> >     <exclude name="**/*.pass2" />
> >
> >     <exclude name="**/*.list" />
> >
> >     <exclude name="**/src/META-INF/**" />
> >
> >     <exclude name="**/binaries-list" />
> >
> >     ...the Rat report lists 6540 problematic files, instead of 9164,
> which is
> >     the current number.
> >
> >     Gj
> >
> >     On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> >     [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >         > >
> > >         Hi all,
> > >
> > >         Following on from the additional Rat excludes by jlahoda:
> > >
> > >         https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/4
> > >
> > >         I'd like to propose several others be excluded via Rat, since
> these are
> > >         IMHO files "without any degree of creativity" (
> > >         https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html) and thus do
> not require a
> > >         license header:
> > >
> > >             * .list files
> > >             * META-INF/services files
> > >             * .pass files
> > >             * binaries-list files
> > >
> > >         The above are all documented here with the question whether
> they have any
> > >         degree of creativity:
> > >
> > >         https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/
> > >         NetBeans+Transition+Process
> > >
> > >         They're all simple registration files of one type or another
> and do not
> > >         qualify IMHO as having any degree of creativity.
> > >
> > >         Comments?
> > >
> > >         Thanks,
> > >
> > >         Gj
> > >
> > >     >
>

Reply via email to