You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@bigtop.apache.org by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> on 2015/08/07 23:58:34 UTC
Validating licenses as a part of the patch process
Guys
as a part of 1.0 I have stepped on a huge number of licensing violations in
the form of missing header files, etc. It is all fixed now both on
branch-1.0 for upcoming 1.0 release and on the master. Because RAT check is
clean now, let's keep it this way. Hence I have added the following to out
patch preparation Wiki page:
Run mvn apache-rat:check to make sure that newly added files do not have any
licensing issues. When in doubt refer to https://www.apache.org/licenses/
I think patch reviewers need to check the correctness of the license headers
as a part of their review routine..
Regards,
Cos
Re: Validating licenses as a part of the patch process
Posted by Evans Ye <ev...@apache.org>.
+1 and with Jay.
We can add one dedicate CI job to check RAT nightly on trunk.
I'll do that. It should be an easy task.
2015-08-11 6:28 GMT+08:00 Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>:
> Ah - perfect find! I have started putting together gradle version of the
> build
> of the artifacts - perhaps we'll be able to have 100% gradle build soon ;)
>
> Cos
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:25PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > FWIW, there's a gradle RAT plugin now:
> > https://plugins.gradle.org/plugin/org.nosphere.apache.rat
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Guys
> > >
> > > as a part of 1.0 I have stepped on a huge number of licensing
> violations in
> > > the form of missing header files, etc. It is all fixed now both on
> > > branch-1.0 for upcoming 1.0 release and on the master. Because RAT
> check is
> > > clean now, let's keep it this way. Hence I have added the following to
> out
> > > patch preparation Wiki page:
> > >
> > > Run mvn apache-rat:check to make sure that newly added files do not
> have
> > > any
> > > licensing issues. When in doubt refer to
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/
> > >
> > > I think patch reviewers need to check the correctness of the license
> > > headers
> > > as a part of their review routine..
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Cos
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> > - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
>
Re: Validating licenses as a part of the patch process
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Ah - perfect find! I have started putting together gradle version of the build
of the artifacts - perhaps we'll be able to have 100% gradle build soon ;)
Cos
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 03:25PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> +1
>
> FWIW, there's a gradle RAT plugin now:
> https://plugins.gradle.org/plugin/org.nosphere.apache.rat
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Guys
> >
> > as a part of 1.0 I have stepped on a huge number of licensing violations in
> > the form of missing header files, etc. It is all fixed now both on
> > branch-1.0 for upcoming 1.0 release and on the master. Because RAT check is
> > clean now, let's keep it this way. Hence I have added the following to out
> > patch preparation Wiki page:
> >
> > Run mvn apache-rat:check to make sure that newly added files do not have
> > any
> > licensing issues. When in doubt refer to https://www.apache.org/licenses/
> >
> > I think patch reviewers need to check the correctness of the license
> > headers
> > as a part of their review routine..
> >
> > Regards,
> > Cos
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> - Andy
>
> Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> (via Tom White)
Re: Validating licenses as a part of the patch process
Posted by Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>.
+1
FWIW, there's a gradle RAT plugin now:
https://plugins.gradle.org/plugin/org.nosphere.apache.rat
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guys
>
> as a part of 1.0 I have stepped on a huge number of licensing violations in
> the form of missing header files, etc. It is all fixed now both on
> branch-1.0 for upcoming 1.0 release and on the master. Because RAT check is
> clean now, let's keep it this way. Hence I have added the following to out
> patch preparation Wiki page:
>
> Run mvn apache-rat:check to make sure that newly added files do not have
> any
> licensing issues. When in doubt refer to https://www.apache.org/licenses/
>
> I think patch reviewers need to check the correctness of the license
> headers
> as a part of their review routine..
>
> Regards,
> Cos
>
>
--
Best regards,
- Andy
Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)
Re: Validating licenses as a part of the patch process
Posted by jay vyas <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 , also we can do this in CI?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:24 PM, RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Guys
> >
> > as a part of 1.0 I have stepped on a huge number of licensing violations
> in
> > the form of missing header files, etc. It is all fixed now both on
> > branch-1.0 for upcoming 1.0 release and on the master. Because RAT check
> is
> > clean now, let's keep it this way. Hence I have added the following to
> out
> > patch preparation Wiki page:
> >
> > Run mvn apache-rat:check to make sure that newly added files do not have
> > any
> > licensing issues. When in doubt refer to
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/
> >
> > I think patch reviewers need to check the correctness of the license
> > headers
> > as a part of their review routine..
> >
> > Regards,
> > Cos
> >
> >
>
--
jay vyas
Re: Validating licenses as a part of the patch process
Posted by RJ Nowling <rn...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org> wrote:
> Guys
>
> as a part of 1.0 I have stepped on a huge number of licensing violations in
> the form of missing header files, etc. It is all fixed now both on
> branch-1.0 for upcoming 1.0 release and on the master. Because RAT check is
> clean now, let's keep it this way. Hence I have added the following to out
> patch preparation Wiki page:
>
> Run mvn apache-rat:check to make sure that newly added files do not have
> any
> licensing issues. When in doubt refer to https://www.apache.org/licenses/
>
> I think patch reviewers need to check the correctness of the license
> headers
> as a part of their review routine..
>
> Regards,
> Cos
>
>