Hi,
I understand the fear. With any tool like that and, indeed,
process, it
is all too common to go through the motions and ignore the spirit of why it
was being done in the first place. When preparing a release I found
it necessary to wade through the available documentation to find out
what that
process was, and in that respect the RAT tool was a very minor part.
There was
no impression on my part that you just had to run RAT and that was that.
If I am to offer a suggestion, I would suggest that there be a clear
release process
documented in a single location, with the rational for each of its steps
included. The
RAT itself I regard as nothing more than polish, and I'm hardly what
you'd call an experienced
Apache committer.
By the way, when I say the RAT is nothing more than polish, it is useful
polish. Checking a large
codebase manually for consistent licenses would be tedious beyond
belief, and would have to be done.
Regards,
Stuart
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
On 2010-08-17, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Ross, while I understand the "All it does" part I don't get the
"dangerous" part.
It becomes dangerous if people start to believe it did more than scan
for licenses.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
--
Stuart Monteith
http://blog.stoo.me.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
