Hi, I understand the point of not using the SNAPSHOT versions. I will update my PRs [1] to use final version of the apache-rat v16 tool.
I think I can adopt the approach of listing every excluded single file explicitly. I agree it brings big confidence that only the needed is excluded. What is a negative aspect is the number of entries we will have, especially for kie-tools, where I started already that approach. Keep eyes on my PRs [1] please. [1] [kogito-images] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-images/pull/1811 [kie-tools] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-tools/pull/2746 [optaplanner] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/pull/3130 [kogito-runtimes] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-runtimes/pull/3714 [kogito-apps] https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-kogito-apps/pull/2111 Jozef Marko Software Developer [email protected] ________________________________ From: Tiago Bento <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 7:27 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] license headers check I'm afraid https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/rat/apache-rat/0.17-SNAPSHOT/apache-rat-0.17-20241115.065104-374.jar is not a reliable download URL, as SNAPSHOTs are usually pruned after a while... We might start seeing failures in our "License headers checks" if/when this gets removed. Looking at our own 999-SNAPSHOTs (at https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/kie/kogito/kogito-bom/999-SNAPSHOT/ ), it seems like they only keep the last 5 SNAPSHOTs? Not sure, TBH. One thing I shared with Jozef in a GitHub comment is that it might be more interesting to list single files as exclusions, since it might be very tempting to put whole classes of files or entire directories as exclusion patterns, leaving us unintentionally without headers in files that should actually contain them. On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 11:13 AM Jason Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you’re using an unreleased version to do the checking, we should probably > let that be known when we do a vote and put it in the verification notes. I > think most people would use the released version by default. > > -- > Jason Porter > Software Engineer > He/Him/His > > IBM > > > From: Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 at 03:18 > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] license headers check > +1 for 0.17 > > Regards, > _____________ > Alex Porcelli > http://porcelli.me > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:05 AM Toshiya Kobayashi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I was using apache-rat 0.16.1 that supports file names with regex, but it > > cannot express file paths. > > > > Jozef found that apache-rat 0.17-SNAPSHOT (no final release yet) supports > > glob pattern like `**/optaplanner-examples/data/**/import/**`, which cannot > > be done with apache-rat 0.16. > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-optaplanner/pull/3130/files > > > > SNAPSHOT is not nice, but Jozef makes sure to get the same binary in GHA: > > > > curl -LO > > > > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/snapshots/org/apache/rat/apache-rat/0.17-SNAPSHOT/apache-rat-0.17-20241115.065104-374.jar > > > > > > We can do the same in the release verification steps. > > > > Also apache-rat is just for verification, not a part of the release, so I > > think it's okay to use. We need to unify the version to use. So I +1 for > > 0.17. > > > > Please share your thoughts on this. > > > > Thanks! > > Toshiya > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 6:03 PM Jozef Marko <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I think it is a good idea to have also a exclude file used for source > > code > > > realease, just not sure, where would we store such 'source code release' > > > exclude file. > > > > > > > > > > > > Jozef Marko > > > > > > Software Developer > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Alex Porcelli <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2024 5:15 PM > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] license headers check > > > > > > just a friendly reminder, although our codebase is spread across several > > > repositories, the source release combines all of them. > > > > > > In the other words… we need (maybe additionally) one single exclude file > > > for the source release. > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 9:45 PM Toshiya Kobayashi < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you for the replies. > > > > > > > > > Do we have a ticket for this? > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1613 > > > > > > > > > Maybe during the release we combine all of the ones from the > > different > > > > repos into one so it is easier for people to use during release time? > > > > > > > > I think it's doable. "Combine them during the release CI" can be a > > > separate > > > > good-to-have issue. > > > > > > > > Even "one per repository" would be good enough for the ease of the > > > release > > > > verification. > > > > > > > > > Also allows to implement a PR check like this, or similar. > > > > > > > > Yes, we have added a GHA for rat check -> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-drools/pull/6149 > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Toshiya > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 5:24 AM Tiago Bento <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot for bringing this to the mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > I'm also in favor of us going with the Apache RAT CLI tool, with one > > > > > .rat-excludes per repository. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 12:20 PM Jan Šťastný <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for CLI > > > > > > I'd use a one per repository, which then ends up in the source zip > > > > > archive > > > > > > and is straightforward for all voters to execute the same file in > > > > several > > > > > > directories. Also allows to implement a PR check like this, or > > > similar. > > > > > > > > > > > > regards > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 at 16:26, Jason Porter <[email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do we have a ticket for this? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, do we have a single .rat-excludes at the root of the > > release > > > > > > > tarball, or one for each repo? Maybe during the release we > > combine > > > > all > > > > > of > > > > > > > the ones from the different repos into one so it is easier for > > > people > > > > > to > > > > > > > use during release time? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Jason Porter > > > > > > > Software Engineer > > > > > > > He/Him/His > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IBM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jozef Marko <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Date: Thursday, November 14, 2024 at 02:27 > > > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] license headers check > > > > > > > Hi Toshiya, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for this email. Yes, just sharing also here my opinion, > > > > that > > > > > > > 'apache-rat java cli tool' fits the best the current state of the > > > KIE > > > > > > > codebase, where we have also the kie-tools monorepo, that is not > > > > bound > > > > > to > > > > > > > the maven. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jozef Marko > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Software Developer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > From: Toshiya Kobayashi <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 7:25 AM > > > > > > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [DISCUSS] license headers check > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One of the cumbersome parts of the release verification is "All > > > files > > > > > have > > > > > > > license headers if necessary." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have a .rat-excludes file in each repository, the step can > > be > > > > > quickly > > > > > > > done with the command line. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I filed a GH issue: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1613 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jozef mentioned that we should unify the approach (Thanks!), so I > > > > > raise the > > > > > > > topic in this ML. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please have a look at Jozef's comment about the existing > > > initiatives > > > > > for > > > > > > > license check. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-kie-issues/issues/1613#issuecomment-2475467000 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As written in the comment, we should choose one of them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - apache-rat-plugin > > > > > > > - checkstyle.header.template > > > > > > > - apache-rat java cli tool > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, +1 for `apache-rat java cli tool` because it's not > > tied > > > > to > > > > > > > maven projects and it's easy for the release verification step. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please share any thoughts on this. Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Toshiya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
