I really don't like adding headers to script "fragments". I understand the need to have a license header in a script, but when it comes to compose them to produce one single file that will be copied to the deployed nodes and then executed, then we'll end up with scripts with the license headers at random parts.
Script execution would not be affected, but reading the script and seeing license texts here and there, IMHO gives a feeling of something broken, or something that did not get properly generated. If we must add the license headers to the script fragments, I'd like to consider modifying the scriptbuilder to strip comments. On 16 May 2013 22:11, Adrian Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > cool. thanks > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Andrew Bayer <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > >>
