On 21 July 2013 14:05, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2013/7/21 sebb :
>> On 21 July 2013 13:30, Robert Scholte wrote:
>>> "Also, the files change relatively rarely once set up."
>>>
>>> I thought you strongly believed in Murphy's Law...
>>
>> Not sure how that is relevant.
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Dennis:
2013/7/21 sebb :
> On 21 July 2013 13:30, Robert Scholte wrote:
>> "Also, the files change relatively rarely once set up."
>>
>> I thought you strongly believed in Murphy's Law...
>
> Not sure how that is relevant.
>
>>
>> I agree with Dennis: let's ask for the *facts* why these files are required
On 21 July 2013 13:38, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Also keep in mind, there is likely a large difference between the
> LICENSE/NOTICE files that would go into a "source release" than would go into
> the binary convenience releases. 90% of the source NOTICE/LICESE files are
> just plain Apache Lice
On 21 July 2013 13:30, Robert Scholte wrote:
> "Also, the files change relatively rarely once set up."
>
> I thought you strongly believed in Murphy's Law...
Not sure how that is relevant.
>
> I agree with Dennis: let's ask for the *facts* why these files are required
> here.
Robert already quo
On 21 July 2013 13:22, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Op Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:10:12 +0200 schreef sebb :
>
>
>> On 21 July 2013 12:39, Robert Scholte wrote:
>>>
>>> Having a copy here does indeed mean we have to maintain it, unless we use
>>> svn:externals (but better not do that).
>>> If I'm correct, bo
Also keep in mind, there is likely a large difference between the
LICENSE/NOTICE files that would go into a "source release" than would go into
the binary convenience releases. 90% of the source NOTICE/LICESE files are
just plain Apache License and the simple 4 line NOTICE.
For the binary
"Also, the files change relatively rarely once set up."
I thought you strongly believed in Murphy's Law...
I agree with Dennis: let's ask for the *facts* why these files are
required here. If it is because they need to be included in the
source-release file, then add them additionally inste
Op Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:10:12 +0200 schreef sebb :
On 21 July 2013 12:39, Robert Scholte wrote:
Having a copy here does indeed mean we have to maintain it, unless we
use
svn:externals (but better not do that).
If I'm correct, both files contain custom 'fields', referring to the
name of
the
On 21 July 2013 13:09, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi
>
> Has anyone asked if we can use generated files instead?
>
> Many of the ASF rules are written by people that have not concidered the
> fact that things such as these can be automated. Therefore many of these
> rules are stated in a way that do
On 21 July 2013 12:39, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Having a copy here does indeed mean we have to maintain it, unless we use
> svn:externals (but better not do that).
> If I'm correct, both files contain custom 'fields', referring to the name of
> the project and/or a year or date.
"both files" - whi
Hi
Has anyone asked if we can use generated files instead?
Many of the ASF rules are written by people that have not concidered the
fact that things such as these can be automated. Therefore many of these
rules are stated in a way that does not fit directly into the Maven way of
doing things.
We
Having a copy here does indeed mean we have to maintain it, unless we use
svn:externals (but better not do that).
If I'm correct, both files contain custom 'fields', referring to the name
of the project and/or a year or date. Also, I'm always having trouble with
year ranges: suppose the range
On 21 July 2013 11:48, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Damned there are plenty of Apache projects which don't do that :-)
They will have to be fixed over time.
> But in this case the plugin maven-remote-resources-plugin doesn't have
> to be used anymore?
> Because now we can have duplicate N&L with possib
Damned there are plenty of Apache projects which don't do that :-)
But in this case the plugin maven-remote-resources-plugin doesn't have
to be used anymore?
Because now we can have duplicate N&L with possible different content.
As one will be maintained manually which mean we can miss to add cont
From http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#source-tree-location
"Location Within the Source Tree
LICENSE and NOTICE belong at the top level of the source tree. They may be
named LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt, but the bare names are preferred."
If you consider a release root as the top
why?
Is it mandatory? If yes I'd like to have some links.
AFAIK those files are generated.
This mean we will have to add those files for all artifacts we produce.
If one day the content change we will have to change all files in the
scm instead of only the plugin which generate that.
Seriously?
2
16 matches
Mail list logo
