But yeah I forgot the .js files. I'll add them right away.
The bad thing about having it as a unittest is that it has to be copied to every subproject and can't just be run off wicket-parent. What to do with all these license headers when "building binaries"/"sending output to client"/etc. is another discussion. :) Frank On 11/5/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was going to propose to use checkstyle instead. Problem with checkstyle is that it is not a unit test and doesn't run inside Eclipse, NetBeans or IDEA :-). I would also (as a preliminary action) add javascript to the list (.js). We can always remove them, but at the moment, they need to be in there. I don't expect ASF to relax their stance on those files. +1 on removing the svn keywords. Martijn On 11/5/06, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Last night when I couldn't sleep I got this crazy idea to write a unittest > for checking the source files in the project for correct license headers. > When I woke up this morning the idea still seemed quite reasonable, so I > cleaned it up and have now committed some code for it[1]. > > So what does this mean? Well to begin with the test checks the following > file types: .java, .xml, .html, .properties, .fml, .css and .vm. For .java > files it's checking on the new updated Apache2 license header[2], *without* > our svn keywords. The developers I have talked to doesn't seem to care about > those anyway, but WDYT? > > The test doesn't fix the headers or add the license. > > WDYT? > > Frank > > [1]: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=471390 > [2]: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html > > -- <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket ">Wicket</a> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World!</a>
