You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jclouds.apache.org by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> on 2013/05/16 21:16:21 UTC
Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Hi, all.
per https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates shell
scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in the past
as these scripts are combined at runtime.
Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting shell
script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers to
script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also that it
adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we added
license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that uses
nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to write code
to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance data,
it might push us over the limit.
Bottom-line question is:
Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as shell
script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
-A
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
OK here's the summary from quite an interesting irc session.
Nobody likes this, but if we all think beyond it, we can release and
eventually graduate. Moreover we can reduce our burden on the IPMC and our
release managers who would have to answer for it. I think for these
reasons there's more to gain working around the header policy
than futilely fighting it.
So, here's the going advice:
1. play conservative to help avoid IPMC questions and also ease the job of
our RM (Andrew B.)
2. this means that we'll add headers to everything in src with noted
exceptions in test resources
3. any rat exception will be noted as an xml comment in the RAT config in
the root pom.xml file
Thanks for the participation in a colorful topic such as this :)
-A
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to make it clear, we'll be adding the license header in each
> script fragment, so the jclouds "distribution" will hace the header
> properly placed in each source file.
>
> What we will do is to remove the licenses at runtime, to be able to
> compose those fragments in a readable way, but that will only happen
> at runtime when generating a script to be uploaded to a node.
>
> On 16 May 2013 22:22, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because each source file needs the license, not the binary. An Apache
> > release is first and foremost a release of the source code, so if there
> are
> > any files in the source tree that *don't* have the license header, it'll
> > raise questions.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> why would we need to justify lines of code inside scriptbuilder? that
> >> collapses the header into one? Is there a rule that says we need
> headers
> >> randomly placed inside files templating systems generate?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release -
> be
> >> > prepared for that.
> >> >
> >> > A.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Ignasi,
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
> >> > > comments inside scriptbuilder.
> >> > >
> >> > > -A
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I
> >> understand
> >> > > > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes
> to
> >> > > > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
> >> > > > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts
> with
> >> > > > the license headers at random parts.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
> >> > > > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of
> >> something
> >> > > > broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd
> like
> >> > > > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > > > > cool. thanks
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> >> > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >> > > > >wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with
> >> > > scriptbuilder
> >> > > > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable
> to me
> >> > > > being as
> >> > > > >> far as we go.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> A.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <
> >> > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> >> > > > >> >wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
> >> > > > explanations :)
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of
> checking
> >> > > > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data.
> >> I'm
> >> > > > going
> >> > > > >> to
> >> > > > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise
> we'd
> >> > have
> >> > > to
> >> > > > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
> >> > > > fragments)
> >> > > > >> in
> >> > > > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > -A
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> >> > > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >> > > > >> > >wrote:
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files
> to
> >> > meet
> >> > > > RAT
> >> > > > >> > > checks.
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > A.
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <
> david@gnsa.us
> >> >
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
> >> > > > >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> >> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, all.
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > per
> >> > > > >>
> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which
> >> > > generates
> >> > > > >> > shell
> >> > > > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license
> >> > headers
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > >> the
> >> > > > >> > > > past
> >> > > > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below,
> the
> >> > > > resulting
> >> > > > >> > > shell
> >> > > > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license
> headers
> >> > > > inlined.
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding
> license
> >> > > > headers
> >> > > > >> to
> >> > > > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern,
> >> but
> >> > > also
> >> > > > >> that
> >> > > > >> > > it
> >> > > > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For
> example,
> >> if
> >> > > we
> >> > > > >> added
> >> > > > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup,
> >> everything
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > >> > uses
> >> > > > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd
> >> have
> >> > to
> >> > > > >> write
> >> > > > >> > > code
> >> > > > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as
> EC2
> >> > > > instance
> >> > > > >> > > data,
> >> > > > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to
> commands,
> >> > > such
> >> > > > as
> >> > > > >> > > shell
> >> > > > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> >> > > > >> > > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > > -A
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable
> >> > > requires a
> >> > > > >> > > > license header.
> >> > > > >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
> >> > > > >> > > >
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I
> might
> >> > > agree
> >> > > > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
> >> > > > exception,
> >> > > > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC
> >> > > members)
> >> > > > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems -
> so
> >> you
> >> > > (or
> >> > > > >> the
> >> > > > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including
> licenses
> >> > > > headers
> >> > > > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about
> adding a
> >> > > short
> >> > > > >> form
> >> > > > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two
> comment
> >> > lines
> >> > > > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a
> look
> >> > at
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
> >> > > > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > > > --David
> >> > > > >> > > >
> >> > > > >> > >
> >> > > > >> >
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.
Just to make it clear, we'll be adding the license header in each
script fragment, so the jclouds "distribution" will hace the header
properly placed in each source file.
What we will do is to remove the licenses at runtime, to be able to
compose those fragments in a readable way, but that will only happen
at runtime when generating a script to be uploaded to a node.
On 16 May 2013 22:22, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because each source file needs the license, not the binary. An Apache
> release is first and foremost a release of the source code, so if there are
> any files in the source tree that *don't* have the license header, it'll
> raise questions.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> why would we need to justify lines of code inside scriptbuilder? that
>> collapses the header into one? Is there a rule that says we need headers
>> randomly placed inside files templating systems generate?
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release - be
>> > prepared for that.
>> >
>> > A.
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Ignasi,
>> > >
>> > > I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
>> > > comments inside scriptbuilder.
>> > >
>> > > -A
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I
>> understand
>> > > > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
>> > > > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
>> > > > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
>> > > > the license headers at random parts.
>> > > >
>> > > > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
>> > > > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of
>> something
>> > > > broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
>> > > >
>> > > > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
>> > > > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
>> > > >
>> > > > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > cool. thanks
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <
>> > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> > > > >wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with
>> > > scriptbuilder
>> > > > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me
>> > > > being as
>> > > > >> far as we go.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> A.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <
>> > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
>> > > > >> >wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
>> > > > explanations :)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
>> > > > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data.
>> I'm
>> > > > going
>> > > > >> to
>> > > > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd
>> > have
>> > > to
>> > > > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
>> > > > fragments)
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > -A
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <
>> > > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> > > > >> > >wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to
>> > meet
>> > > > RAT
>> > > > >> > > checks.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > A.
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us
>> >
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
>> > > > >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > > > Hi, all.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > per
>> > > > >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which
>> > > generates
>> > > > >> > shell
>> > > > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license
>> > headers
>> > > > in
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > past
>> > > > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the
>> > > > resulting
>> > > > >> > > shell
>> > > > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers
>> > > > inlined.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license
>> > > > headers
>> > > > >> to
>> > > > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern,
>> but
>> > > also
>> > > > >> that
>> > > > >> > > it
>> > > > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example,
>> if
>> > > we
>> > > > >> added
>> > > > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup,
>> everything
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> > uses
>> > > > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd
>> have
>> > to
>> > > > >> write
>> > > > >> > > code
>> > > > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2
>> > > > instance
>> > > > >> > > data,
>> > > > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands,
>> > > such
>> > > > as
>> > > > >> > > shell
>> > > > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > -A
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable
>> > > requires a
>> > > > >> > > > license header.
>> > > > >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
>> > > > >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might
>> > > agree
>> > > > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
>> > > > exception,
>> > > > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC
>> > > members)
>> > > > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so
>> you
>> > > (or
>> > > > >> the
>> > > > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses
>> > > > headers
>> > > > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a
>> > > short
>> > > > >> form
>> > > > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment
>> > lines
>> > > > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look
>> > at
>> > > > that
>> > > > >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
>> > > > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > --David
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
Because each source file needs the license, not the binary. An Apache
release is first and foremost a release of the source code, so if there are
any files in the source tree that *don't* have the license header, it'll
raise questions.
A.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>wrote:
> why would we need to justify lines of code inside scriptbuilder? that
> collapses the header into one? Is there a rule that says we need headers
> randomly placed inside files templating systems generate?
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release - be
> > prepared for that.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Ignasi,
> > >
> > > I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
> > > comments inside scriptbuilder.
> > >
> > > -A
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I
> understand
> > > > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
> > > > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
> > > > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
> > > > the license headers at random parts.
> > > >
> > > > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
> > > > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of
> something
> > > > broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
> > > >
> > > > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
> > > > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
> > > >
> > > > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > cool. thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with
> > > scriptbuilder
> > > > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me
> > > > being as
> > > > >> far as we go.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <
> > adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> > > > >> >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
> > > > explanations :)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
> > > > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data.
> I'm
> > > > going
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd
> > have
> > > to
> > > > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
> > > > fragments)
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > -A
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> > > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to
> > meet
> > > > RAT
> > > > >> > > checks.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > A.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
> > > > >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > Hi, all.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > per
> > > > >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which
> > > generates
> > > > >> > shell
> > > > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license
> > headers
> > > > in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > past
> > > > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the
> > > > resulting
> > > > >> > > shell
> > > > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers
> > > > inlined.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license
> > > > headers
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern,
> but
> > > also
> > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example,
> if
> > > we
> > > > >> added
> > > > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup,
> everything
> > > > that
> > > > >> > uses
> > > > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd
> have
> > to
> > > > >> write
> > > > >> > > code
> > > > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2
> > > > instance
> > > > >> > > data,
> > > > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands,
> > > such
> > > > as
> > > > >> > > shell
> > > > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > -A
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable
> > > requires a
> > > > >> > > > license header.
> > > > >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
> > > > >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might
> > > agree
> > > > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
> > > > exception,
> > > > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC
> > > members)
> > > > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so
> you
> > > (or
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses
> > > > headers
> > > > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a
> > > short
> > > > >> form
> > > > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment
> > lines
> > > > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look
> > at
> > > > that
> > > > >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
> > > > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > --David
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
why would we need to justify lines of code inside scriptbuilder? that
collapses the header into one? Is there a rule that says we need headers
randomly placed inside files templating systems generate?
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release - be
> prepared for that.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Ignasi,
> >
> > I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
> > comments inside scriptbuilder.
> >
> > -A
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand
> > > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
> > > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
> > > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
> > > the license headers at random parts.
> > >
> > > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
> > > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something
> > > broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
> > >
> > > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
> > > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
> > >
> > > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > cool. thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with
> > scriptbuilder
> > > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me
> > > being as
> > > >> far as we go.
> > > >>
> > > >> A.
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <
> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> > > >> >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
> > > explanations :)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
> > > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm
> > > going
> > > >> to
> > > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd
> have
> > to
> > > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
> > > fragments)
> > > >> in
> > > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -A
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> > andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > > >> > >wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to
> meet
> > > RAT
> > > >> > > checks.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > A.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
> > > >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > > > Hi, all.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > per
> > > >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which
> > generates
> > > >> > shell
> > > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license
> headers
> > > in
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > past
> > > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the
> > > resulting
> > > >> > > shell
> > > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers
> > > inlined.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license
> > > headers
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but
> > also
> > > >> that
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if
> > we
> > > >> added
> > > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything
> > > that
> > > >> > uses
> > > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have
> to
> > > >> write
> > > >> > > code
> > > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2
> > > instance
> > > >> > > data,
> > > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands,
> > such
> > > as
> > > >> > > shell
> > > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > -A
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable
> > requires a
> > > >> > > > license header.
> > > >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
> > > >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might
> > agree
> > > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
> > > exception,
> > > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC
> > members)
> > > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you
> > (or
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses
> > > headers
> > > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a
> > short
> > > >> form
> > > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment
> lines
> > > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look
> at
> > > that
> > > >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
> > > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --David
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
We'll have to justify that to the IPMC/mentors etc when we release - be
prepared for that.
A.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Ignasi,
>
> I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
> comments inside scriptbuilder.
>
> -A
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand
> > the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
> > compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
> > deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
> > the license headers at random parts.
> >
> > Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
> > seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something
> > broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
> >
> > If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
> > to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
> >
> > On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > cool. thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with
> scriptbuilder
> > >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me
> > being as
> > >> far as we go.
> > >>
> > >> A.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> > >> >wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
> > explanations :)
> > >> >
> > >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
> > >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm
> > going
> > >> to
> > >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have
> to
> > >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
> > fragments)
> > >> in
> > >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
> > >> >
> > >> > -A
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <
> andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > >> > >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet
> > RAT
> > >> > > checks.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > A.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
> > >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > Hi, all.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > per
> > >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which
> generates
> > >> > shell
> > >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers
> > in
> > >> the
> > >> > > > past
> > >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the
> > resulting
> > >> > > shell
> > >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers
> > inlined.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license
> > headers
> > >> to
> > >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but
> also
> > >> that
> > >> > > it
> > >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if
> we
> > >> added
> > >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything
> > that
> > >> > uses
> > >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to
> > >> write
> > >> > > code
> > >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2
> > instance
> > >> > > data,
> > >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands,
> such
> > as
> > >> > > shell
> > >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > -A
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable
> requires a
> > >> > > > license header.
> > >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
> > >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might
> agree
> > >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
> > exception,
> > >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC
> members)
> > >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you
> (or
> > >> the
> > >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses
> > headers
> > >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a
> short
> > >> form
> > >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
> > >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at
> > that
> > >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
> > >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --David
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
in fact, it might be easier to implement this than correct all the test
resources.. do you have time to have a go at this? It only affects
resources used in scriptbuilder loaded by classpath or osgi.
-A
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Ignasi,
>
> I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
> comments inside scriptbuilder.
>
> -A
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand
>> the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
>> compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
>> deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
>> the license headers at random parts.
>>
>> Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
>> seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something
>> broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
>>
>> If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
>> to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
>>
>> On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > cool. thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with scriptbuilder
>> >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me
>> being as
>> >> far as we go.
>> >>
>> >> A.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
>> >> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
>> explanations :)
>> >> >
>> >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
>> >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm
>> going
>> >> to
>> >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have
>> to
>> >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
>> fragments)
>> >> in
>> >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
>> >> >
>> >> > -A
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <
>> andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> >> > >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet
>> RAT
>> >> > > checks.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
>> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
>> >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > Hi, all.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > per
>> >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which
>> generates
>> >> > shell
>> >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers
>> in
>> >> the
>> >> > > > past
>> >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the
>> resulting
>> >> > > shell
>> >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers
>> inlined.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license
>> headers
>> >> to
>> >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but
>> also
>> >> that
>> >> > > it
>> >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we
>> >> added
>> >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything
>> that
>> >> > uses
>> >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to
>> >> write
>> >> > > code
>> >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2
>> instance
>> >> > > data,
>> >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands,
>> such as
>> >> > > shell
>> >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > -A
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires
>> a
>> >> > > > license header.
>> >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
>> >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might
>> agree
>> >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
>> exception,
>> >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
>> >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you
>> (or
>> >> the
>> >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses
>> headers
>> >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short
>> >> form
>> >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
>> >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at
>> that
>> >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
>> >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --David
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Ignasi,
I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip
comments inside scriptbuilder.
-A
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand
> the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
> compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
> deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
> the license headers at random parts.
>
> Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
> seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something
> broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
>
> If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
> to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
>
> On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > cool. thanks
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with scriptbuilder
> >> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me
> being as
> >> far as we go.
> >>
> >> A.
> >>
> >> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual
> explanations :)
> >> >
> >> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
> >> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm
> going
> >> to
> >> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have to
> >> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
> >> >
> >> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script
> fragments)
> >> in
> >> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
> >> >
> >> > -A
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet
> RAT
> >> > > checks.
> >> > >
> >> > > A.
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
> >> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > Hi, all.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > per
> >> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates
> >> > shell
> >> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers
> in
> >> the
> >> > > > past
> >> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the
> resulting
> >> > > shell
> >> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers
> inlined.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license
> headers
> >> to
> >> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also
> >> that
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we
> >> added
> >> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything
> that
> >> > uses
> >> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to
> >> write
> >> > > code
> >> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2
> instance
> >> > > data,
> >> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such
> as
> >> > > shell
> >> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > -A
> >> > > >
> >> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
> >> > > > license header.
> >> > > > There is an exception, namely:
> >> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
> >> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above
> exception,
> >> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
> >> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or
> >> the
> >> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses
> headers
> >> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short
> >> form
> >> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
> >> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at
> that
> >> > > > thread and at links from that file.
> >> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --David
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Ignasi <ig...@gmail.com>.
I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand
the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to
compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the
deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with
the license headers at random parts.
Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and
seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something
broken, or something that did not get properly generated.
If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like
to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments.
On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> cool. thanks
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with scriptbuilder
>> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me being as
>> far as we go.
>>
>> A.
>>
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual explanations :)
>> >
>> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
>> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm going
>> to
>> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have to
>> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
>> >
>> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script fragments)
>> in
>> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
>> >
>> > -A
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet RAT
>> > > checks.
>> > >
>> > > A.
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
>> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > Hi, all.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > per
>> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
>> > > > >
>> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates
>> > shell
>> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in
>> the
>> > > > past
>> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting
>> > > shell
>> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers
>> to
>> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also
>> that
>> > > it
>> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we
>> added
>> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that
>> > uses
>> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to
>> write
>> > > code
>> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance
>> > > data,
>> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as
>> > > shell
>> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -A
>> > > >
>> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
>> > > > license header.
>> > > > There is an exception, namely:
>> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>> > > >
>> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
>> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception,
>> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
>> > > >
>> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
>> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or
>> the
>> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers
>> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
>> > > >
>> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short
>> form
>> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
>> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that
>> > > > thread and at links from that file.
>> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
>> > > >
>> > > > --David
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
cool. thanks
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with scriptbuilder
> functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me being as
> far as we go.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual explanations :)
> >
> > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
> > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm going
> to
> > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have to
> > change our unit tests to emit license headers.
> >
> > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script fragments)
> in
> > a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
> >
> > -A
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet RAT
> > > checks.
> > >
> > > A.
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <
> adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi, all.
> > > > >
> > > > > per
> https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> > > > >
> > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates
> > shell
> > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in
> the
> > > > past
> > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting
> > > shell
> > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
> > > > >
> > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> > > > >
> > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers
> to
> > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also
> that
> > > it
> > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we
> added
> > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that
> > uses
> > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to
> write
> > > code
> > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance
> > > data,
> > > > > it might push us over the limit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bottom-line question is:
> > > > >
> > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as
> > > shell
> > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> > > > >
> > > > > -A
> > > >
> > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
> > > > license header.
> > > > There is an exception, namely:
> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > > >
> > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
> > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception,
> > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
> > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or
> the
> > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers
> > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> > > >
> > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short
> form
> > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
> > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that
> > > > thread and at links from that file.
> > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> > > >
> > > > --David
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with scriptbuilder
functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me being as
far as we go.
A.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual explanations :)
>
> So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
> src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm going to
> make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have to
> change our unit tests to emit license headers.
>
> I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script fragments) in
> a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
>
> -A
>
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet RAT
> > checks.
> >
> > A.
> >
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi, all.
> > > >
> > > > per https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> > > >
> > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates
> shell
> > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in the
> > > past
> > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> > > >
> > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting
> > shell
> > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
> > > >
> > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> > > >
> > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers to
> > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also that
> > it
> > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we added
> > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that
> uses
> > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to write
> > code
> > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance
> > data,
> > > > it might push us over the limit.
> > > >
> > > > Bottom-line question is:
> > > >
> > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as
> > shell
> > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> > > >
> > > > -A
> > >
> > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
> > > license header.
> > > There is an exception, namely:
> > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> > >
> > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
> > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception,
> > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> > >
> > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
> > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or the
> > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers
> > > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> > >
> > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short form
> > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
> > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that
> > > thread and at links from that file.
> > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> > >
> > > --David
> > >
> >
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>.
Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual explanations :)
So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking
src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm going to
make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have to
change our unit tests to emit license headers.
I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script fragments) in
a separate commit as it will break unit tests.
-A
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet RAT
> checks.
>
> A.
>
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi, all.
> > >
> > > per https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> > >
> > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates shell
> > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in the
> > past
> > > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> > >
> > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting
> shell
> > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
> > >
> > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> > >
> > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers to
> > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also that
> it
> > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we added
> > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that uses
> > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to write
> code
> > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance
> data,
> > > it might push us over the limit.
> > >
> > > Bottom-line question is:
> > >
> > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as
> shell
> > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> > >
> > > -A
> >
> > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
> > license header.
> > There is an exception, namely:
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
> >
> > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
> > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception,
> > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
> >
> > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
> > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or the
> > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers
> > for each of those license-header-excluded files.
> >
> > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short form
> > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
> > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that
> > thread and at links from that file.
> > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
> >
> > --David
> >
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by Andrew Bayer <an...@gmail.com>.
And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet RAT
checks.
A.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > per https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
> >
> > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates shell
> > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in the
> past
> > as these scripts are combined at runtime.
> >
> > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting shell
> > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
> >
> > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
> >
> > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers to
> > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also that it
> > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we added
> > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that uses
> > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to write code
> > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance data,
> > it might push us over the limit.
> >
> > Bottom-line question is:
> >
> > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as shell
> > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
> >
> > -A
>
> So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
> license header.
> There is an exception, namely:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
>
> I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
> that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception,
> something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
>
> Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
> reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or the
> release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers
> for each of those license-header-excluded files.
>
> There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short form
> license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
> instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that
> thread and at links from that file.
> http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
>
> --David
>
Re: Mentors: do we need to add ASF headers to shell script fragments?
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <ad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> per https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286
>
> jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates shell
> scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in the past
> as these scripts are combined at runtime.
>
> Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting shell
> script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined.
>
> runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot);
>
> I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers to
> script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also that it
> adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we added
> license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that uses
> nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to write code
> to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance data,
> it might push us over the limit.
>
> Bottom-line question is:
>
> Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as shell
> script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder?
>
> -A
So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a
license header.
There is an exception, namely:
http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions
I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree
that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception,
something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO.
Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members)
reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or the
release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers
for each of those license-header-excluded files.
There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short form
license header for short files - that would be two comment lines
instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that
thread and at links from that file.
http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2
--David