in fact, it might be easier to implement this than correct all the test resources.. do you have time to have a go at this? It only affects resources used in scriptbuilder loaded by classpath or osgi.
-A On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Cole <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >
