Ok, so I jumped the gun a little bit. I took a look at the rat-plugin. The RAT tool does indeed auto-add license headers, as described here: http://incubator.apache.org/rat/apache-rat/. However, that's from stand-alone. The Maven rat-plugin does not auto-add license headers; there is no configuration option to do so, and indeed inspection of the rat-plugin source code module shows no calls whatsoever to the *LicenseAppender classes from the rat-core module.
Besides that, the output from RAT for a missing license header is in a rat.txt file deposited to the target folder of a given build. Our current use of the Google license header checker displays the filenames of offending files inline in the maven build output. Putting the output in target/rat.txt is fine, except that it may trip up those that are unfamiliar with the behavior of the RAT plugin. Currently, all you get with RAT plugin is a one-liner: "[INFO] Too many unapproved licenses: 1." It doesn't even say "go look in target/rat.txt". :) So, I'm -1 on my own suggestion. :) I'll be submitting some Jiras to the RAT team for these upgrades. I am now of the opinion that we should wait until RAT matures a little bit before we integrate it into our build. mike On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Jesse A Ramos <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 from me as well. > > Let me know if you plan to make this change for 1.1.1. Otherwise I'll > continue working on getting that out. > > > > > > From: > Nicholas Gallardo <[email protected]> > To: > [email protected] > Date: > 06/14/2010 01:23 PM > Subject: > Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT? > > > > +1 > > I remember the earlier discussion about RAT. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mike Rheinheimer <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, June 14, 2010 12:59:42 PM > Subject: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT? > > Hi, there was a request during the last release process on the PMC > list to remove the header checking during regular maven builds of > Wink. It was cluttering up the output, and the suggestion was to do > it only in the CIBuild profile. I'm ok with this change, however, it > introduces the opportunity to push code or changes that don't have > license headers. My workflow does not typically involve doing a > CIBuild. I could very easily see myself accidentally committing > something that lacks the header, which would be caught later during a > Hudson build. Regardless, in the interest of satisfying PMCs, > cleaning up our build output, and making the build (marginally) > faster, is everyone ok with this change? > > In addition, we are currently using a Google maven plugin to do this > license header check: > > <plugin> > <groupId>com.google.code.maven-license-plugin</groupId> > <artifactId>maven-license-plugin</artifactId> > ... > > The current trend is to move toward using ARAT (or RAT) project to do > this: http://incubator.apache.org/rat/. This will supposedly perform > the same checks that the maven-licence-plugin did, with the added > benefit of adding the header if we forget. The good news there is > that this clears up the potential problem of only doing licence header > checks in the CIBuild profile I mentioned above. I'll test RAT to > make sure it's doing what we want, and post a Jira with patch for your > review. > > Everyone ok with this? > > Thanks. > mike > > > > > > >
