I believe modules that still have .form files or other "Problems to be solved centrally" should be marked as "Done".
The whole point is to look at everything else. Those problems will be solved... centrally. --emi On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > OK, I have marked all mine as "To do", since I am relying on the central > problems being handled via the tool, i.e., I think all "form" files, for > example, should be processed via the tool, rather than doing them > individually and manually per module. > > I think a peer review would be good, and yes, it is very important to get > the license headers right. A peer review column would be great, I think, > i.e., when a row is marked as Done someone could check that and provide any > comments in the peer review column. > > Gj > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Actually, that means I shouldn't mark those modules as "Done" but as "To > > do". > > > > Gj > > > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> My preference is for trying to handle those common things via the tool, > >> i.e., rather than manually fixing apichanges.xml by hand, the point to > me > >> is to identify that that needs to be fixed, or XML files in general, and > >> add them to the generally problematic list at the top of the page. > >> > >> Gj > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 12:20 AM, Dave Schoorl <dscho...@bkwi.nl> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> When you check a module for license headers and suspicious files (files > >>> that maybe were not owned by Oracle), make changes and do a Pull > Request > >>> (PR), the PR is checked by one or more committers. On the other hand, > when > >>> the person checking a module thinks no modifications are needed, no PR > is > >>> made and no code review is done (obviously). However, review of the > module > >>> check does not seem to take place either. What do we think of that? > >>> > >>> E.g., Geertjan is wotking his ass off, checking one module after > >>> another, but making very little PR's compared to the number of modules > he > >>> processes. When I review a couple of these modules, I think there > might be > >>> some oversights. E.g. > >>> > >>> api.intent has a Bundle.properties with an Oracle license header > >>> > >>> api.progress has a apichanges.xml with an Oracle license header > >>> > >>> api.progress.nb has aapichanges.xml with an Oracle license header > >>> > >>> I would expect those Oracle license headers to be removed or replaced > >>> with Apache license headers. > >>> > >>> > >>> How important is it to get the license headers right? Do we need a peer > >>> review on modules that seem okay? A second name in the name column on > the > >>> wiki page, confirming that no changes are needed? > >>> > >>> Please advise. > >>> > >>> > >>> /Dave > >>> > >>> > >>> @Geertjan: sorry to have used you as an example. > >>> > >> > >> > > >
