Re: RAT issues [was: Re: [VOTE] JSPWiki version 2.9.0-incubating]
Hi, comments inline On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.comwrote: On Oct 8, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: Hello, We've added support to generate RAT files (RAT report for RC3 available at [#1]) and began to play with it, via rat-ant-tasks [#2]. As noted in previous e-mails, all the JSP files lack of a proper header. So, a couple of questions: - we pass the addLicenseHeaders argument to the report task. A lot of .new files get generated with the appropiate header, but none of them correspond to JSPs files. On the other hand the RAT report detects the missing header in the JSP files. Is there any way to enforce the process for JSP files? I'm not clear what you are saying here. If the rat addLicenseHeaders does not create .jsp files with the appropriate header, you may need to manually edit the .jsp files. yep, I was wondering if there was some flag to create this files, as other types of files are created automatically. It was like 1:00am and it seems my brain refused to continue looking at this. A little bit of sed usage should do the trick anyways, so this should be easily done. - we also have some .js files which come with their license header (i.e.: mootools.js). RAT detects them as their header doesn't conform with AL Header. In this case I assume we should ignore this files, is that ok? If you review all of the files that have their own license header, you can then notate them. What rat does is report non-conforming files of all types. Any files that are licensed under a non-Apache license need to be called out in the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files. There are many examples of such files in other projects. If you give specific file names, I can help you with what needs to be done to include them. These js libraries are noted in [LICENSE | NOTICE] so I'll exclude them from RAT analysis. Craig We've also made java files conform strictly with AL header, so the headers issue should be solved once we get rid of the two points noted above. thx in advance, juan pablo [#1]: http://people.apache.org/~juanpablo/rat_2.9.0_rc3.txt [#2]: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-tasks/report.html thx for the tips :-) br, juan pablo
RAT issues [was: Re: [VOTE] JSPWiki version 2.9.0-incubating]
Hello, We've added support to generate RAT files (RAT report for RC3 available at [#1]) and began to play with it, via rat-ant-tasks [#2]. As noted in previous e-mails, all the JSP files lack of a proper header. So, a couple of questions: - we pass the addLicenseHeaders argument to the report task. A lot of .new files get generated with the appropiate header, but none of them correspond to JSPs files. On the other hand the RAT report detects the missing header in the JSP files. Is there any way to enforce the process for JSP files? - we also have some .js files which come with their license header (i.e.: mootools.js). RAT detects them as their header doesn't conform with AL Header. In this case I assume we should ignore this files, is that ok? We've also made java files conform strictly with AL header, so the headers issue should be solved once we get rid of the two points noted above. thx in advance, juan pablo [#1]: http://people.apache.org/~juanpablo/rat_2.9.0_rc3.txt [#2]: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-tasks/report.html On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.comwrote: Hi Christian, Thanks for the review of the release. On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Hello, i'm sorry to -1 your release :-( Please see: http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#headershttp://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers This is a very important document to read and understand. The jspwiki headers are non-standard and should be rewritten to conform. In particular, there should be no extraneous verbiage before the Licensed to... text. No copyright, no other information. I have found a lot of code like in the the src package /src/webdocs/Captcha.jsp which are missing header licenses. I saw it is in the .java files, but they should be basically in every file we release (including jsp) I agree, .jsp files need the Apache license header just as .java files do. Also export.sh misses headers. In the headers of the .java files is: JSPWiki - a JSP-based WikiWiki clone. Not sure if this is a blocker, but you should use the full name Apache JSPWiki instead of only JSPWiki. Personally I would get rid of this line actually, but i think it is up to you. Getting rid of the line is probably the easiest way to conform. Example: https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/** jspwiki_2_9_0_incubating_rc3/**src/org/apache/catalina/util/** HexUtils.javahttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/jspwiki_2_9_0_incubating_rc3/src/org/apache/catalina/util/HexUtils.java I have not tested signatures yet. In other projects sometimes the website is being voted on together with the releases. Is it not the case with JSPWiki? I don't know that I've ever voted on a web site release. Other projects just update the web site as needed, with no vote. On another note, I agree with Ross. Your mentors should have told you that and they should have voted already. This first release has been a long time coming, and I was distracted the last couple of weeks. I agree that the mentors should review the release and advise of remedial action. I'd like to see a rat report on the release. I believe that analysis of the rat report will reinforce the comments that Christian and I made. Regards, Craig Not sure if how the overall situation on your daily project life is. If you feel that you would need more mentor support, please write a separate e-mail to this list. I have only looked at this e-mail as it was open for a couple of days without much responses. Best regards, Christian On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez juanpa...@apache.org wrote: Hi, This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache JSPWiki version 2.9.0-incubating. This will be our first release. A vote was held on the developer mailing list (http://s.apache.org/dzM) and passed with 10 +1s (* denoting PPMC): Janne Jalkannen* Florian Holeczek* Harry Metske* Andrew Jaquith* Dirk Frederickx* Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez* Fabian Haupt Michael Gerzabek Christophe Dupriez Roberto Venturi We need at least 3 IPMC votes. This release fixes the following issues: https://issues.apache.org/**jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?** projectId=12310732version=**12319521https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12310732version=12319521 Source and binary files: http://people.apache.org/~**jalkanen/JSPWiki/2.9.0/http://people.apache.org/~jalkanen/JSPWiki/2.9.0/ The tag to be voted upon: https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/** jspwiki_2_9_0_incubating_rc3https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/jspwiki_2_9_0_incubating_rc3 JSPWiki's KEYS file containing PGP keys we use to sign the release: http://www.apache.org/dist/**incubator/jspwiki/KEYShttp://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jspwiki/KEYS Please
Re: RAT issues [was: Re: [VOTE] JSPWiki version 2.9.0-incubating]
On Oct 8, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote: Hello, We've added support to generate RAT files (RAT report for RC3 available at [#1]) and began to play with it, via rat-ant-tasks [#2]. As noted in previous e-mails, all the JSP files lack of a proper header. So, a couple of questions: - we pass the addLicenseHeaders argument to the report task. A lot of .new files get generated with the appropiate header, but none of them correspond to JSPs files. On the other hand the RAT report detects the missing header in the JSP files. Is there any way to enforce the process for JSP files? I'm not clear what you are saying here. If the rat addLicenseHeaders does not create .jsp files with the appropriate header, you may need to manually edit the .jsp files. - we also have some .js files which come with their license header (i.e.: mootools.js). RAT detects them as their header doesn't conform with AL Header. In this case I assume we should ignore this files, is that ok? If you review all of the files that have their own license header, you can then notate them. What rat does is report non-conforming files of all types. Any files that are licensed under a non-Apache license need to be called out in the NOTICE and/or LICENSE files. There are many examples of such files in other projects. If you give specific file names, I can help you with what needs to be done to include them. Craig We've also made java files conform strictly with AL header, so the headers issue should be solved once we get rid of the two points noted above. thx in advance, juan pablo [#1]: http://people.apache.org/~juanpablo/rat_2.9.0_rc3.txt [#2]: http://creadur.apache.org/rat/apache-rat-tasks/report.html On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Craig L Russell craig.russ...@oracle.comwrote: Hi Christian, Thanks for the review of the release. On Oct 7, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote: Hello, i'm sorry to -1 your release :-( Please see: http://www.apache.org/legal/**src-headers.html#headershttp://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers This is a very important document to read and understand. The jspwiki headers are non-standard and should be rewritten to conform. In particular, there should be no extraneous verbiage before the Licensed to... text. No copyright, no other information. I have found a lot of code like in the the src package /src/webdocs/Captcha.jsp which are missing header licenses. I saw it is in the .java files, but they should be basically in every file we release (including jsp) I agree, .jsp files need the Apache license header just as .java files do. Also export.sh misses headers. In the headers of the .java files is: JSPWiki - a JSP-based WikiWiki clone. Not sure if this is a blocker, but you should use the full name Apache JSPWiki instead of only JSPWiki. Personally I would get rid of this line actually, but i think it is up to you. Getting rid of the line is probably the easiest way to conform. Example: https://svn.apache.org/repos/**asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/** jspwiki_2_9_0_incubating_rc3/**src/org/apache/catalina/util/** HexUtils.javahttps://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/jspwiki/tags/jspwiki_2_9_0_incubating_rc3/src/org/apache/catalina/util/HexUtils.java I have not tested signatures yet. In other projects sometimes the website is being voted on together with the releases. Is it not the case with JSPWiki? I don't know that I've ever voted on a web site release. Other projects just update the web site as needed, with no vote. On another note, I agree with Ross. Your mentors should have told you that and they should have voted already. This first release has been a long time coming, and I was distracted the last couple of weeks. I agree that the mentors should review the release and advise of remedial action. I'd like to see a rat report on the release. I believe that analysis of the rat report will reinforce the comments that Christian and I made. Regards, Craig Not sure if how the overall situation on your daily project life is. If you feel that you would need more mentor support, please write a separate e-mail to this list. I have only looked at this e-mail as it was open for a couple of days without much responses. Best regards, Christian On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez juanpa...@apache.org wrote: Hi, This is a call for a vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache JSPWiki version 2.9.0-incubating. This will be our first release. A vote was held on the developer mailing list (http://s.apache.org/dzM) and passed with 10 +1s (* denoting PPMC): Janne Jalkannen* Florian Holeczek* Harry Metske* Andrew Jaquith* Dirk Frederickx* Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez* Fabian Haupt Michael Gerzabek Christophe Dupriez Roberto Venturi We need at least 3 IPMC votes. This release fixes the following issues:
