Hi Marc,Thanks for the heads-up. I'll follow up with the responsible team and see if it can be improved.
Craig On Apr 15, 2007, at 12:48 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
I notice you found some files with no license headers at all.I had actually known those files existed, but I didn't know if the format supported comments. They were services files, and I investigated and found that our services parser actually does support comments. However, the parser in javax.persistence.Persistence (that parses the META-INF/ javax.persistence.spi.PersistenceProvider file) surprisingly doesn't support comments, so I had to leave the license out of that file.On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:21 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:Good exercise anyway. I notice you found some files with no license headers at all.Good job. Craig On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:And that's why vi is the best editor in the world :) On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote:Nice work -- 26 minutes by my count. :) Eddie On 4/14/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I just went ahead and manually updated the license headers, just toget this taken care of quickly. On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:30 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > Hi Eddie, >> Removing Cliff from this discussion; sorry for the spam, Cliff, but> I recall you asking for it... ;-) > > On Apr 14, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Eddie O'Neil wrote: > >> Craig-- >> >> You're quite right; my apologies for not having caught this >> before now. >>>> Given that this policy went into effect in November 2006, IMHO the >> 0.9.7 release that we're currently reviewing and voting on needs>> to be >> updated to include the appropriate headers. >> >> Thoughts? > > The Release Manager needs to rescind the vote for 0.9.7 and read > the document below in detail. It contains references to scripts> that will update the license headers easier than manually editing> all the files. > > Craig >> >> Eddie >> >> >> >> On 4/14/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The license headers we are using are in conflict with current >>> practice, as documented here: >>> >>> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html >>> >>> There was a big discussion about this topic, but the above is >>> normative as of today. See the discussion in this message: >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/ >>> 200612.mbox/%>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>>>> Bottom line, there should not be a copyright notice in the source>>> headers, only a license notice. >>> >>> Craig Russell >>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ >>> products/jdo >>> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >>> >>> >>> > > Craig Russell> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/ products/jdo> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
