On 17 Aug 2010, at 06:28, Stefan Bodewig <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2010-08-16, Ross Gardler wrote: > >> I think the general "RAT is great" vibe of the discussion was >> misrepresentative of what RAT currently is. There is not much to RAT >> at present other than a very complex pattern matcher that ensures >> license headers are present. > >> It does not audit releases and to pretend it does is dangerous. > > Many, many thanks Ross. I finally start getting the whole thread. All > the time I knew I must be missing something but completely failed to > grasp that people were looking at RAT for more than what it currently > is. > > I completely agree with your description of RAT's current state but I > never expected it to be more - that's why I said its scope (not its code > base) was too small for a TLP. > >> So where is RAT going with respect to functionality. Is it really >> "complete" in it's current form, as some people have suggested? > > As one of the people who suggested it was complete, my answer is yes, > but only because I never envisioned RAT to be more. > > I just re-read <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/RatProposal> and > obviously RAT is not there, yet. OTOH I doubt that extending RAT beyond > what it currently does is on anybody's agenda, at least it is not on > mine. > > Stefan
Well, the reason I wanted to mentor the project was because I want an audit tool, and not just a release audit tool. I want tools that help with identifying and tracking communities. Something where I could say "are we overlooking a potential committer" or "do any committers appear to have gone emeritus without telling us". I'm still interested in that, the question is whether or not I'll ever find the time to actually work on it. We all know desires and wishes don't write code. Ross
