Jefffrey commented on code in PR #11497:
URL: https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/pull/11497#discussion_r4366892321
##########
licenserc.toml:
##########
@@ -16,28 +14,34 @@
# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
# specific language governing permissions and limitations
# under the License.
-#
-
-RAT_VERSION=0.13
-
-# download apache rat
-if [ ! -f apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar ]; then
- curl -s
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/rat/apache-rat/${RAT_VERSION}/apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar
> apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar
-fi
-RAT="java -jar apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar -x "
+[header]
+builtin = "Apache-2.0-ASF"
-RELEASE_DIR=$(cd "$(dirname "$BASH_SOURCE")"; pwd)
+[files]
+includes = ["*.rs", "*.py", "*.md", "*.toml", "*.sh"]
+excludes = [
Review Comment:
we might need to augment some of these comments with why they dont have a
header
e.g. we always exclude generated files, and for certain config files they
dont fall under the category prescribed
> ### What files in an Apache release do not require a license header?
>
> A file without any degree of creativity in either its literal elements or
its structure is not protected by copyright law; therefore, such a file does
not require a license header. If in doubt about the extent of the file's
creativity, add the license header to the file.
>
> It may make sense for some other files to have no license header. Three
examples are:
>
> - Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they relate to.
> - Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
tests to fail.
> - 'Snippet' files that are included in a larger file, when the larger file
would have duplicate licensing headers.
>
> PMCs should use their judgement, err on having a source header and contact
legal-discuss@ if unsure.
- https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html
##########
licenserc.toml:
##########
@@ -16,28 +14,34 @@
# KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the
# specific language governing permissions and limitations
# under the License.
-#
-
-RAT_VERSION=0.13
-
-# download apache rat
-if [ ! -f apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar ]; then
- curl -s
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/rat/apache-rat/${RAT_VERSION}/apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar
> apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar
-fi
-RAT="java -jar apache-rat-${RAT_VERSION}.jar -x "
+[header]
+builtin = "Apache-2.0-ASF"
-RELEASE_DIR=$(cd "$(dirname "$BASH_SOURCE")"; pwd)
+[files]
+includes = ["*.rs", "*.py", "*.md", "*.toml", "*.sh"]
Review Comment:
i think it might be preferable to rely only on `excludes` so by default all
files are included, which i believe is how RAT previously worked
##########
dev/release/rat_exclude_files.txt:
##########
@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-venv/*
Review Comment:
something to consider is if we use [ATR](https://releases.apache.org/)
(which i might try in the [next
release](https://github.com/apache/arrow-rs/issues/10526)) we might still need
an excludes file like this 🤔
- https://releases.apache.org/docs/license-checks
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
