On 9/6/12 11 :49PM, "Om" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Om wrote: >> >> > Carol, >> > >> > I have incorporated all your change requests. Please take a look >>again >> > when you get a chance. You might want to clarify some wording in the >> > READme file as you may think fit. >> > >> > Sometimes the rat report complains about generated files (ex. >> build.number) >> > even though I explicitly exclude it from the rat ant task. Not sure >>what >> > to do about this issue. I thought the rat.report is just a guideline, >> > right? I guess we can just ignore this? >> >> The rat report is an important tool. It is especially important when the >> codebase is large. When I review a release package I will want to >> understand what is in the excludes file and why. Be mindful of >>wildcards. >> I'll look at exceptions individually. If there are a large number I >>won't >> and then I'll let you know why. >> >> Regards, >> Dave >> >> > Dave, > >I think I understand the importance of the rat report. Am I correct in my >assumption that the rat report tool does not check for license headers on >generated files? The "build.number" is one such file that I have added to >the list of exclusions. The rat tool seems to ignore this exclusion and >ends up complaining about the file. I fixed this. The pattern should have been installer/rat.report or */rat.report, not rat.report. I also moved all the Apache uppercase files to the root in the source kit so they're visible when you unpack the distro. I also put READme back to README which is the Apache name and copy it to release/READme so it's visible in the distro dir on the site. I did made some edits in README as well. Everything now builds as I would expect. I did not actually install and test it though. Carol
