Am 09/29/2016 09:04 PM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
Marcus wrote:
Am 09/29/2016 03:26 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
RAT is a tool that we might even not want to use. The important thing is
sometimes I really don't know why someone is coming to such a statement.
This is one of this moments. Why shouldn't we use the RAT scan? Do you
want to search for broken license headers yourself? ;-)
No, of course! I meant: the important thing for the release is that
licenses are OK. RAT is a tool that we use for convenience, but it is
not mandatory that it passes; if RAT gives warnings that are false
positives then we are free to ignore these warnings; and the release
will still be OK, it is not invalidated by the fact that a tool gives
false positives. So it is not mandatory to fix this for 4.1.3, but it
deserves attention for 4.1.4.
so, you have referred RAT to the current release but not in general.
That's OK. And sure, it's not mandatory for any release. I never meant
it this way. It's just that your wording was a bit ambigous and I've asked.
Marcus
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
