I changed a few places in src/test/resources to deal with scriptbuilder functions that now spit out test headers - that's reasonable to me being as far as we go.
A. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]>wrote: > Fair enough. I'll risk breaking folks to avoid perpetual explanations :) > > So, the creativity clause seems to help justify lack of checking > src/test/resource, which only includes test expectation data. I'm going to > make a call and continue to filter this out, as otherwise we'd have to > change our unit tests to emit license headers. > > I'll take care of the src/main/resources things (like script fragments) in > a separate commit as it will break unit tests. > > -A > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > And fwiw, I already added headers to a bunch of .sh files to meet RAT > > checks. > > > > A. > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, David Nalley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, all. > > > > > > > > per https://github.com/jclouds/jclouds/pull/6#issuecomment-18022286 > > > > > > > > jclouds includes a utility called scriptbuilder, which generates > shell > > > > scripts from other fragments. We've not added license headers in the > > > past > > > > as these scripts are combined at runtime. > > > > > > > > Ex. you can imagine that doing a command like below, the resulting > > shell > > > > script would senselessly have multiple ASF license headers inlined. > > > > > > > > runScript = new StatementList(installJDK, addRoot); > > > > > > > > I seriously have objections about insisting adding license headers to > > > > script fragments, not only from the efficiency concern, but also that > > it > > > > adds a chance of hard-to-troubleshoot bugs. For example, if we added > > > > license headers to the script fragment for nohup, everything that > uses > > > > nohup will have an extra 14 lines of comments, or we'd have to write > > code > > > > to remove it. In cases where scriptBuilder is used as EC2 instance > > data, > > > > it might push us over the limit. > > > > > > > > Bottom-line question is: > > > > > > > > Does the ASF require license header on inputs to commands, such as > > shell > > > > script fragments that are inputs to ScriptBuilder? > > > > > > > > -A > > > > > > So the default answer is that everything human-readable requires a > > > license header. > > > There is an exception, namely: > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions > > > > > > I went and looked at some of the functions and while I might agree > > > that something like abort.sh might qualify for the above exception, > > > something like setupPublicCurl.sh doesn't IMO. > > > > > > Additionally - you'll have folks (mentors and other IPMC members) > > > reviewing this and their purpose is to catch problems - so you (or the > > > release manager) will have to justify not including licenses headers > > > for each of those license-header-excluded files. > > > > > > There has been a discussion on legal-discuss about adding a short form > > > license header for short files - that would be two comment lines > > > instead of 16, but it is not established policy. Take a look at that > > > thread and at links from that file. > > > http://markmail.org/thread/xvrxxkela4goxmk2 > > > > > > --David > > > > > >
