I appreciate your response and it is very clear that I am not making that argument at all. And no it does not suck at all to do due diligence — that is whh we are here: we want a product with healthy IP. And we appreciate Justin’s thorough IP review, a lot. However, I would like it to be affirmed that rat exclusions should be discussed and not simply ignored. Otherwise, we should simply not do rat exclusions at all.
Gj On Monday, January 22, 2018, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > Your RAT exclusions could easily hide major problems. They have done in the > past for other incubator releases. This is particularly true for early > releases from a new podling. > > The fact is, the exclusions are for your convenience so that you don't have > to wade through a bunch of warnings that you have already dealt with and > for which RAT is giving a false positive warning. RAT exclusions aren't for > the purpose of hiding serious problems. > > No Apache releases can have non-releasable problems, regardless of whether > RAT has been tuned to accept them. If you have cat X dependencies, you > can't release even if you are a brand new project that has a long history > outside Apache. I don't that Netbeans has any such problems and it sucks to > have to do the due diligence, but that diligence really is due before > release. > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Geertjan Wielenga < > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I am not sure what the point is of spending time on putting rat > exclusions > > together if they’re simply going to be ignored when it comes to IPMC > > members evaluating a release. Yes, we can of course discuss those rat > > exclusions. No, they cannot simply be ignored and we cannot be confronted > > with a very long list of issues in the IPMC vote thread primarily based > on > > the fact that our rat exclusions have been ignored. > > > > I would like this to be affirmed by the IPMC and I would like our mentors > > to advise on their perspective on this too. > > > > Gj > > > > On Sunday, January 21, 2018, Jan Lahoda <lah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean < > > jus...@classsoftware.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > In many/most cases, the issues picked up by Justin are issues that > > are > > > > not > > > > > visible if our rat exclusions are taken into account. Now, of > course, > > > > what > > > > > we can do is discuss those rat exclusions. However, a starting > point > > > > would > > > > > be for Justin or anyone else here to use those rat exclusions when > > > > running > > > > > rat, as a starting point. Then we’ll all have the same results and > > can > > > > > start discussions from the same basis. > > > > > > > > A common problem is that rat exclusions are set too wide and in this > > case > > > > it looks like they have been. Can you point me to the exclusion file > I > > > > can’t see it in the source release. > > > > > > > > > > The exclusions start here: > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-netbeans/blob/ > > > master/nbbuild/build.xml#L2077 > > > > > > (nbbuild/build.xml, line 2077) > > > > > > I guess I still wonder if test data (modifying which would cause tests > to > > > fail) need the ASF header or not. I have an idea how to add the headers > > in > > > case of NetBeans without manually fixing every test that uses them, so > if > > > that works, this may be moot for NetBeans. But it still feels that the > > FAQ > > > may need tweaking to make it more reliable and to prevent unnecessary > > > discussions for others in the future. > > > > > > Also, is there something specific we need to do with (binary) NOTICE? > For > > > example, we bundle lucene-core-3.5.0.jar, so our NOTICE includes the > > > content of META-INF/NOTICE.txt from that jar. Is that correct? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO there are still a number of serious issue (LICENSE missing > > licenses, > > > > category B issues and source release contains compiled source code) > so > > my > > > > vote would still be -1 on this release because of those. But my vote > is > > > > just one vote and is not a veto, other IPMC members (including your > > > > mentors) can vote +1 on this and if you get 3 +1’s and more +1s than > > -1s > > > > then it’s a release. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Justin > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
