Hi Justin, Many thanks for your thorough review, by the end of this we’re really going to have a release that is excellently IP-cleared.
Since two of our mentors gave a +1 in the PPMC vote, I’m interested in their take on your review too. Just curious, that’s all, how they evaluate your points. Also note that the link to the PPMC vote thread provides a link to the Ant Rat results, not sure why you’re getting different results. Many thanks again, Gj On Saturday, January 20, 2018, Justin Mclean <justinmcl...@me.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > Hi Justing, > > It’s Justin actually. > > > Regarding the Java files and .pass files: as NetBeans is (among other > > things) a Java IDE, it has tests that take a Java file (often very simple > > or peculiar). The expected output may be in a .pass file - in which case > > the .pass file may contain (possibly transformed) code. It is not the > only > > system used for test, but it is used commonly. What is the proper way to > > handle such tests under ASF? My understanding is (was) that test files > that > > would cause tests fail may have no license header: > > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions < > https://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#faq-exceptions> > > IMO If it's code it should have a header, having 700+ files without > headers makes it very hard to find other files which are missing headers. > > > There are a few optional and/or compile-time GPL-type dependencies (+a > > dependency on JDK), but none of them is supposed to be in the release > files. > > OK (and that may be totally fine) but it's confusing to have the license > in the source release if that code is not a dependancy or bundled. > > Thanks, > Justin
