You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by janI <ja...@apache.org> on 2013/11/02 21:54:19 UTC
ratscan
Hi.
As part of making a new central Makefile I found the target "ratscan".
Do we actively use this target or is it a leftover from the move to ASF ?
rgds
jan I.
Re: ratscan
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 2 November 2013 23:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jan,
> > >
> > > Thanks for asking about Apache Rat and ratscan.
> > >
> > > On Nov 2, 2013, at 1:54 PM, janI wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi.
> > > >
> > > > As part of making a new central Makefile I found the target
> "ratscan".
> > > >
> > > > Do we actively use this target or is it a leftover from the move to
> > ASF ?
> > >
> > > The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan
> > output
> > > in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1 a release this is
> > > something that PMC members must check. This is more important to get
> > > correct than the code quality.
> >
>
> This is an interesting statement, I have never been presented with a
> ratscan output even though I was PMC member when we voted for both 4.0 and
> 4.0.1. I highly agree that ratscan is important, but I cannot find the
> output in svn, would it not be a natural place to have it together with the
> release ?
>
This was a significant discussion point for the 3.4 release. I think most
of the issues have now been resolved. Re, location...it seems it's always
been run separately.
>
> > >
> > > IMO - If you are thinking about auto-build with digital signing then
> the
> > > ratscan must pass before signed artifacts are generated. It is not
> > required
> > > to make a nightly build.
> > >
> > > For this thread we are only discussing the parts of our svn tree that
> we
> > > release. [1]
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > [1] There is an inactive flame (and let's leave it that way please)
> about
> > > the parts of the Symphony contribution that are yet to be moved into
> > active
> > > development.
> > >
> >
> > There seems to be a ratscan run against trunk nightly -- see the link on:
> >
> > http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
> >
> > I don't know who set this up or any details though. Could be the target
> Jan
> > is referring to is used in this.
> >
> >
> thanks for the reference, as far as I can see this run does not use the
> makefiles, but I will check up on this.
>
> I have verified its not run in our normal nightly run, which basically do a
> "build --all"
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
There is a config option: --with-rat-scan
https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO/Rat_Scan
the option is still there but I don't have any experience with it.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > rgds
> > > > jan I.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > MzK
> >
> > “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> > Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> > -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
> >
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
-- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
Re: ratscan
Posted by Herbert Duerr <hd...@apache.org>.
On 03.11.2013 20:29, janI wrote:
> it sure looks like it, thx for correcting me.
>
>> [...]
>> Besides, build-bot openoffice-linux64-rat runs the target weekly:
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>>
>
> that runs on trunk, and not on the branches.
Yes, I noticed that too. So I committed r879545/r879849 and
r869036/r869204/r870734 in the buildbot configuration file
openofficeorg.conf during the release phase to switch it temporarily to
the release branch. There is no need to worry: the last releases were
covered.
Herbert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: ratscan
Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.
On 11/3/13 8:29 PM, janI wrote:
> On 3 November 2013 19:23, Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 01:47:54AM +0100, janI wrote:
>>>> The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan
>>>> output in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1
>>>> a release this is something that PMC members must check. This is
>>>> more important to get correct than the code quality.
>>>
>>> This is an interesting statement, I have never been presented with
>>> a ratscan output even though I was PMC member when we voted for both
>>> 4.0 and 4.0.1. I highly agree that ratscan is important, but I cannot
>>> find the output in svn, would it not be a natural place to have it
>>> together with the release ?
>>
>> It looks like you didn't do your homework before voting, Jürgen usually
>> posts the link to the ratscan output in the [VOTE] thread, for example:
>> http://markmail.org/message/dtyu2zisyvismaqg
>> http://markmail.org/message/cquhuieawf4jbx6j
>>
>
> it sure looks like it, thx for correcting me.
>
>
>>
>> Besides, build-bot openoffice-linux64-rat runs the target weekly:
>> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>>
>
> that runs on trunk, and not on the branches.
it runs on trunk to detect problems early. For the release I triggered
it on the related branch. And sure we can automate this further.
But I believe having it and running it regularly on trunk is enough. All
committers should think about a correct license header if they create
new files or should check all license relevant issues if they plan to
use a new external library.
Juergen
>
> rgds
> jan I.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>> La Plata, Argentina
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
Re: ratscan
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 3 November 2013 19:23, Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 01:47:54AM +0100, janI wrote:
> > > The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan
> > > output in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1
> > > a release this is something that PMC members must check. This is
> > > more important to get correct than the code quality.
> >
> > This is an interesting statement, I have never been presented with
> > a ratscan output even though I was PMC member when we voted for both
> > 4.0 and 4.0.1. I highly agree that ratscan is important, but I cannot
> > find the output in svn, would it not be a natural place to have it
> > together with the release ?
>
> It looks like you didn't do your homework before voting, Jürgen usually
> posts the link to the ratscan output in the [VOTE] thread, for example:
> http://markmail.org/message/dtyu2zisyvismaqg
> http://markmail.org/message/cquhuieawf4jbx6j
>
it sure looks like it, thx for correcting me.
>
> Besides, build-bot openoffice-linux64-rat runs the target weekly:
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>
that runs on trunk, and not on the branches.
rgds
jan I.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>
Re: ratscan
Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 01:47:54AM +0100, janI wrote:
> > The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan
> > output in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1
> > a release this is something that PMC members must check. This is
> > more important to get correct than the code quality.
>
> This is an interesting statement, I have never been presented with
> a ratscan output even though I was PMC member when we voted for both
> 4.0 and 4.0.1. I highly agree that ratscan is important, but I cannot
> find the output in svn, would it not be a natural place to have it
> together with the release ?
It looks like you didn't do your homework before voting, Jürgen usually
posts the link to the ratscan output in the [VOTE] thread, for example:
http://markmail.org/message/dtyu2zisyvismaqg
http://markmail.org/message/cquhuieawf4jbx6j
Besides, build-bot openoffice-linux64-rat runs the target weekly:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
Regards
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
Re: ratscan
Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.
On 2 November 2013 23:03, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > Thanks for asking about Apache Rat and ratscan.
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2013, at 1:54 PM, janI wrote:
> >
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > As part of making a new central Makefile I found the target "ratscan".
> > >
> > > Do we actively use this target or is it a leftover from the move to
> ASF ?
> >
> > The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan
> output
> > in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1 a release this is
> > something that PMC members must check. This is more important to get
> > correct than the code quality.
>
This is an interesting statement, I have never been presented with a
ratscan output even though I was PMC member when we voted for both 4.0 and
4.0.1. I highly agree that ratscan is important, but I cannot find the
output in svn, would it not be a natural place to have it together with the
release ?
> >
> > IMO - If you are thinking about auto-build with digital signing then the
> > ratscan must pass before signed artifacts are generated. It is not
> required
> > to make a nightly build.
> >
> > For this thread we are only discussing the parts of our svn tree that we
> > release. [1]
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > [1] There is an inactive flame (and let's leave it that way please) about
> > the parts of the Symphony contribution that are yet to be moved into
> active
> > development.
> >
>
> There seems to be a ratscan run against trunk nightly -- see the link on:
>
> http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
>
> I don't know who set this up or any details though. Could be the target Jan
> is referring to is used in this.
>
>
thanks for the reference, as far as I can see this run does not use the
makefiles, but I will check up on this.
I have verified its not run in our normal nightly run, which basically do a
"build --all"
rgds
jan I.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > rgds
> > > jan I.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
> Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
> -- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
>
Re: ratscan
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> Thanks for asking about Apache Rat and ratscan.
>
> On Nov 2, 2013, at 1:54 PM, janI wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > As part of making a new central Makefile I found the target "ratscan".
> >
> > Do we actively use this target or is it a leftover from the move to ASF ?
>
> The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan output
> in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1 a release this is
> something that PMC members must check. This is more important to get
> correct than the code quality.
>
> IMO - If you are thinking about auto-build with digital signing then the
> ratscan must pass before signed artifacts are generated. It is not required
> to make a nightly build.
>
> For this thread we are only discussing the parts of our svn tree that we
> release. [1]
>
> Best Regards,
> Dave
>
> [1] There is an inactive flame (and let's leave it that way please) about
> the parts of the Symphony contribution that are yet to be moved into active
> development.
>
There seems to be a ratscan run against trunk nightly -- see the link on:
http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/
I don't know who set this up or any details though. Could be the target Jan
is referring to is used in this.
> >
> > rgds
> > jan I.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot,
Nothing is going to get better. It's not.”
-- Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
Re: ratscan
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Jan,
Thanks for asking about Apache Rat and ratscan.
On Nov 2, 2013, at 1:54 PM, janI wrote:
> Hi.
>
> As part of making a new central Makefile I found the target "ratscan".
>
> Do we actively use this target or is it a leftover from the move to ASF ?
The project must do ratscans actively. PMC members need the ratscan output in order to review IP License compliance. When you +1 a release this is something that PMC members must check. This is more important to get correct than the code quality.
IMO - If you are thinking about auto-build with digital signing then the ratscan must pass before signed artifacts are generated. It is not required to make a nightly build.
For this thread we are only discussing the parts of our svn tree that we release. [1]
Best Regards,
Dave
[1] There is an inactive flame (and let's leave it that way please) about the parts of the Symphony contribution that are yet to be moved into active development.
>
> rgds
> jan I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org