Nevermind, I looked into it a bit further. I guess all of this stuff was ironed out during incubation. How do you guys keep all of this straight (Doug Lea's code, some Apache 1.1-licensed diff stuff, etc.)? Do you do diffs of your RAT reports or something to make sure nothing crazy sneaks in? I'm just curious.
On 3/9/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your RAT report shows JavaScript files without license headers. > Shouldn't they have them? > > > On 3/9/08, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I have build our second bug-fix release for 1.3. It's uploaded to my > > p.a.oaccount: > > > > Distribution: > > http://people.apache.org/~frankbille/releases/apache-wicket-1.3.2/dist/ > > > > M2 Repo: > > http://people.apache.org/~frankbille/releases/apache-wicket-1.3.2/m2-repo/ > > > > RAT log file: > > > http://people.apache.org/~frankbille/releases/apache-wicket-1.3.2/apache-wicket-1.3.2.rat > > > > The files has been signed by me and you can find the key here: > > http://www.apache.org/dist/wicket/1.3.1/KEYS > > > > As usual I have tested the release myself and haven't found anything: > > > > - "mvn clean install" in the distribution (mac os x) > > - "mvn jetty:run" in jdk-1.5/wicket-examples. Random testing of form, > > ajax, pub, guice + some more. (mac os x, safari) > > - Checked the RAT log > > > > > > [ ] Release Apache Wicket 1.3.2 > > [ ] Don't release, because... > > > > > > Thank you in advance, > > > > Frank Bille > > >
