[DISCUSS] Release gshell 1.0-alpha2

[Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>]

I ran rat against the tag and found the following files missing the 
Apache license header.  These are probably alright because I don't see 
them included in any of the distribution artifacts ... but I thought I 
would check in "just in case".

./NOTES.txt
./build
./extract
./gsh
./rebuild
./src/uml/GShell.mdxml

Joe

Re: [DISCUSS] Release gshell 1.0-alpha2

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> None of those files are included in a release.
>
> They're part of the source release, whether or not they're in the  
> binary distribution is irrelevant...
> The binary files (build, extract, etc) are pretty trivial. So, I  
> wouldn't require a re-release for those... They look like somebody's  
> private build tools. I doubt they should really be in svn. Some of  
> them don't look like they'd work (i.e. rebuild is calling  
> 'nukeTargets').

Sure, they could be removed, they are the scripts I run, I got tired  
of having to recreate them when my laptop drive kept crashing.


> NOTES.txt looks like a todo list. Prolly should be removed, but I  
> wouldn't hold up a release for that either.

Um, why would I want to remove a todo list?

What about README.txt should that also be removed?


> The above files should be cleaned up on trunk...

Why?


> Assume GShell.mdxml is generated by a tool, and therefore wouldn't  
> require a license header. Are you using this as a development aid?

This is the MagicDraw UML models for the project.

  * * *

IMO, the source distribution already contains a top-level LICENSE.txt  
and NOTICE.txt and that should be good enough to cover any of the  
files which are in question.

--jason

Re: [DISCUSS] Release gshell 1.0-alpha2

[Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>]

On Feb 17, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> None of those files are included in a release.

They're part of the source release, whether or not they're in the  
binary distribution is irrelevant...

The binary files (build, extract, etc) are pretty trivial. So, I  
wouldn't require a re-release for those... They look like somebody's  
private build tools. I doubt they should really be in svn. Some of  
them don't look like they'd work (i.e. rebuild is calling  
'nukeTargets').

NOTES.txt looks like a todo list. Prolly should be removed, but I  
wouldn't hold up a release for that either.

The above files should be cleaned up on trunk...

Assume GShell.mdxml is generated by a tool, and therefore wouldn't  
require a license header. Are you using this as a development aid?

--kevan

Re: [DISCUSS] Release gshell 1.0-alpha2

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

None of those files are included in a release.

--jason


On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:47 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:

> I ran rat against the tag and found the following files missing the  
> Apache license header.  These are probably alright because I don't  
> see them included in any of the distribution artifacts ... but I  
> thought I would check in "just in case".
>
> ./NOTES.txt
> ./build
> ./extract
> ./gsh
> ./rebuild
> ./src/uml/GShell.mdxml
>
> Joe