On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:27 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Feb 8, 2013, at 10:19 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Sebastien Goasguen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Feb 8, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 03:52:25PM -0500, David Nalley wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Chip Childers >>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Builds are continuing to fail right now... Due to the check-in of the >>>>>>> .po files. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The offending issues can be seen in the Rat report here: >>>>>>> https://builds.apache.org/job/cloudstack-rat-master/744/artifact/target/rat.txt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do folks think that we should (1) correct them, or (2) exclude them from >>>>>>> reporting? I'm not familiar enough with their lifecycle to know what >>>>>>> the right answer is. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> They should be corrected IMO. >>>>>> >>>>>> --David >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sebastien, >>>>> >>>>> As our self appointed "Master of Translation", do you mind doing the >>>>> honors? >>>>> >>>>> -chip >>>> >>>> The .pot files are generated automatically by publican. >>>> >>>> Sorry I totally missed that they did not have Apache license headers. >>>> >>>> You want me to revert the commit ? never done it. >>>> >>>> -sebastien >>>> >>> >>> Why not just add the license header to them? >>> >>> --David >> >> I will do that, but I don't know what it will do with transifex…when we push >> ... >> >> we will have the same issue with the .po files (there are a few in the >> runbook branch right now). >> >> >> > > It does nothing with transifex - look at the .pot files for the > runbook - and iirc if you send up pot files with license, po files > will keep it - but I may be misremembering. > > --David
No you are right, that's how it looks like in the runbook branch (nothing to do there)
