[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user jlahoda commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 Merged this pull request: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-netbeans.git;a=commit;h=0aa49fe575905f3c3eddd47c6b95194d40115174 ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user jlahoda commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 I am no opposed to excluding binaries-list, but I'd add: -remove existing license headers from binaries-list -explain the decision at release time if needed So, are you willing to work on this central problem and resolve it? Thanks. ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user emilianbold commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 I don't believe there is much IP value in the binaries-list files and I would not add that huge license header in all of them when they generally have 1-2 lines. The overall project license applies to all the files regardless. So my solution would be not to add the license header to the binaries-list files and just add a RAT exclusion filter. ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user jlahoda commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 Well, I think it would be good to decide if we (really) want to solve the binaries-list issue centrally, and if yes solve it. Are you willing to resolve that? ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user emilianbold commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 The way I understood it, I will absolutely not touch "Problems to be solved centrally" because they will be dealt with entirely at some future moment. Only reason I would care about those is if I see an Oracle copyright header. Not if they have none. > So I was adding the headers to binaries-lists I was modifying, as that should not be wrong either way. It kinda makes sense since you also modified the file, although not substantially (it's still the same dependency) but I would have kept it without a header because it's trivial to add them "centrally" afterwards. ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user matthiasblaesing commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 My take: If a file needs to be edited, there is no draw back in adding the license header also. There is already a mixed set (files with and without license header), so the problem would be already there. ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user jlahoda commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 Regarding binaries-list, yes it is listed in the central problems (although all that means is that some of us will need to propose and implement a solution). Including the header for a single line (typically) file may be somewhat silly, but I am not sure if not adding the header is worth the discussion that will arise (given that, unlike in e.g. manifests, there is basically no issue with the header). Some of these files also already have a license header. So I was adding the headers to binaries-lists I was modifying, as that should not be wrong either way. ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user emilianbold commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 So, are we adding license to binaries-list? Isn't is part of the "Problems to be solved centrally"? ---
[GitHub] incubator-netbeans issue #33: -external library jna-platform-4.2.2.jar: dual...
Github user matthiasblaesing commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/pull/33 Looks good. ---
