On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> This is why we're relying a great deal on RAT's exclusion file to mark >> the files that came from PG even though their license headers could look >> weir enough. > > Would’t be better to fix/add the headers?
For things where we diverged from the upstream with producing sizable changes to the existing code -- absolutely and some of your findings may as well fit in that category. For the code that is kept pristine, I'd like to avoid modifying the headers. If you remember, we had a very similar conversation in the context of Kudu, and I'd like HAWQ to stick to the same path treating unmodified upstream code that Kudu settled on: http://markmail.org/thread/7w7gjmqrzlutx62z If you feel like HAWQ's case is somehow different from Kudu -- I'd love to know more. > The issue with rat exclusions is that I find they tend to be made too wide > and than at some point fail to capture something important. Agreed and if you can advise us on how to make sure that we tag certain files as coming 100% verbatim from PG in a very visible way -- I'd be more than happy to do that. For now, the only place I can see for doing that is LICENSE with a full list of file names (without any kind of wildcards). This will make LICENSE somewhat big, but I think it should be ok. Will this work? Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
