Ignasi, I'm with you on this. Let's have a follow-up pull request to strip comments inside scriptbuilder.
-A On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ignasi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
