Le 5/3/12 2:58 PM, Francesco Chicchiriccò a écrit :
On 03/05/2012 14:52, Emmanuel Lécharny wrote:
Hi !
/me Checking the release atm. So far, nothing blocking. I'm not
totally done but I have a few comments :
- When you start a new vote, say so by adding a number in the subject
(like "[Vote] Apache Syncope...; Take 3"). It helps people to not get
lost...
You're right, even though I would hope this won't be the case for each
vote in the future... :-)
:)
- I still have some files with no license with running mvn rat:check :
core/src/main/resources/META-INF/services/org.identityconnectors.common.logging
core/src/test/resources/test.csv
AFAICT, those two files have no reason to have a license, and I guess
that it's covered in the apache-rat-plugin configuration. Can you
confirm that the check should be done with mvn apache-rat:check ? In
any case, I won't vote -1 because of those two files, just want to be
sure.
As reported in the email body, apache-rat:check should be run, not
rat:check; the latter has no configuration in our project, while the
former does.
The reasons for preferring apache-rat over rat are:
* apache-rat is included in Apache POM 10, not rat
* rat is obsolete, as reported by
http://mojo.codehaus.org/rat-maven-plugin/
Ok, thanks. I checked the configuration, and those two files are
correctly ignored.
One bad news though :
the
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachesyncope-026/org/apache/syncope/syncope-archetype/1.0.0-RC1-incubating/syncope-archetype-1.0.0-RC1-incubating-sources.jar
does not contain the correct NOTICE and LICENSE files :/
Ps : we may need a tool (a kind of shell script) to check those files on
all the jars/wars/etc, otherwise is just a PITA to do it by hand ...
--
Regards,
Cordialement,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
