I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat exclusions together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based on the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored.
I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors to advise on their perspective on this too. Gj On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that are > > not > > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of course, > > what > > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting point > > would > > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when > > running > > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and can > > > start discussions from the same basis. > > > > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this case > > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file I > > can’t see it in the source release. > > > > The exclusions start here: > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/ > master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077 > > (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077) > > I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests to > fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers in > case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so if > that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the FAQ > may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary > discussions for others in the future. > > Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? For > example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the > content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct? > > Thanks, > Jan > > > > > > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing licenses, > > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) so my > > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote is > > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your > > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than -1s > > then it’s a release. > > > > Thanks, > > Justin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
