You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wink.apache.org by Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@ohmyhead.com> on 2010/06/14 19:59:42 UTC
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
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 24, 2010, at 10:50 PM, Mike Rheinheimer wrote:
> Certainly it is a useful tool, and will become better as time goes on,
> especially since it's an Apache project. I just don't think it's
> quite there yet versus the Google license header plugin. It'll get
> there, and hopefully soon, though I have yet to see any activity on my
> Jiras from several weeks ago. So it goes..
Well, evidently not good enough to flag wink-itests/wink-itest/wink-itest-contentencode/pom.xml as a problem... ;-)
--kevan
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@ohmyhead.com>.
Certainly it is a useful tool, and will become better as time goes on,
especially since it's an Apache project. I just don't think it's
quite there yet versus the Google license header plugin. It'll get
there, and hopefully soon, though I have yet to see any activity on my
Jiras from several weeks ago. So it goes..
mike
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Mike Rheinheimer wrote:
>
>> ... and another thing. Auto-add of licence would not also
>> auto-commit. I don't think anyone would want that. So this type of
>> feature in the rat-plugin would only be a slight help vs. a simple
>> report of a missing header. It saves the tiny bit of time it would
>> take to hand-edit the offending file.
>
> I have no experience with google license header. I can't imagine that auto-add would be a good feature to have (certainly not one to base a decision on, one way or another). Fail the build if a header is missing -- that seems like plenty of incentive...
>
> I'll run RAT on a release, regardless...
>
> --kevan
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 14, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Mike Rheinheimer wrote:
> ... and another thing. Auto-add of licence would not also
> auto-commit. I don't think anyone would want that. So this type of
> feature in the rat-plugin would only be a slight help vs. a simple
> report of a missing header. It saves the tiny bit of time it would
> take to hand-edit the offending file.
I have no experience with google license header. I can't imagine that auto-add would be a good feature to have (certainly not one to base a decision on, one way or another). Fail the build if a header is missing -- that seems like plenty of incentive...
I'll run RAT on a release, regardless...
--kevan
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@apache.org>.
... and another thing. Auto-add of licence would not also
auto-commit. I don't think anyone would want that. So this type of
feature in the rat-plugin would only be a slight help vs. a simple
report of a missing header. It saves the tiny bit of time it would
take to hand-edit the offending file.
mike
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 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 <jr...@us.ibm.com> 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 <ni...@yahoo.com>
>> To:
>> wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> 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 <ro...@ohmyhead.com>
>> To: wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@apache.org>.
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 <jr...@us.ibm.com> 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 <ni...@yahoo.com>
> To:
> wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 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 <ro...@ohmyhead.com>
> To: wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Jesse A Ramos <jr...@us.ibm.com>.
+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 <ni...@yahoo.com>
To:
wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
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 <ro...@ohmyhead.com>
To: wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
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
Re: switch from Google license header plugin to RAT?
Posted by Nicholas Gallardo <ni...@yahoo.com>.
+1
I remember the earlier discussion about RAT.
----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Rheinheimer <ro...@ohmyhead.com>
To: wink-dev@incubator.apache.org
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