On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 04:19:59PM +0100, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > An interesting question (which I see you have decided at least part of > the answer for). The .rb files seem fairly straightforward as > requiring a licence, although the rest perhaps arent quite as clear. > Since the licence is a comment, is it possible to adjust the test > output to strip them, or is that not within our control? (I dont have > a clue about ruby and/or cucumber)
The .feature files in cucumber support comments in that you can use a # to cause the line to not be processed. But the text is always sent to stdout whether it's a comment or not. And the problem is that it increases the noise-to-useful-output ratio. > I believe the general idea is that anything with creativity in it > should have a licence, but I tend to just be of the opinion that *all* > files should have the licence in some way unless there is a very clear > legal or (allowable) technical reason they absolutely shouldnt. It > cuts down the noise and ensures you dont need to worry as much about > whether things need be licenced or not. > > I believe its allowable in certain cases to use a short form for the > licence (e.g as done in manifest files) that at least contains the > URL, so that might also be an approach to investigate using (one of > the .java files flagged by RAT had the entire header but had a space > in its URL and so failed the check). I think a single line comment would keep the ratio low enough so that the testing output doesn't get pushed off-screen by the license text. -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
pgpsIWczYqxQL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
