OK, so, if everything is done except for the central things, then it's done. I'll revert my "To dos" back to "Dones" and add a note re this to the status section at the top of the page.
Gj On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Emilian Bold <emilian.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
