Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early releases from a new podling.
The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have to wade through a bunch of warnings that you have already dealt with and for which RAT is giving a false positive warning. RAT exclusions aren't for the purpose of hiding serious problems. No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you can't release even if you are a brand new project that has a long history outside Apache. I don't that Netbeans has any such problems and it sucks to have to do the due diligence, but that diligence really is due before release. On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > >
