update to add changes from tbroyer gwt-timer code review - #8
Conversation
| <organizationUrl>...</organizationUrl> | ||
| <name>The GWT Authors</name> | ||
| <organization>The GWT Project Authors</organization> | ||
| <url>https://github.com/gwtproject</url> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hmm, is this better, or would we like gwtproject.org here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, gwtproject.org would be better. Fwiw, this is what I use: https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt-http/blob/15a0c4e09a12a62b04b41cf3b79fe21eb5da12b3/buildSrc/src/main/kotlin/local/maven-publish.gradle.kts#L38-L59, i.e.
<developer>
<name>The GWT Project Authors</name>
<url>http://www.gwtproject.org</url>
</developer>| </plugin> | ||
| <plugin> | ||
| <groupId>com.mycila</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>license-maven-plugin</artifactId> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks like we should remove the license validation in checkstyle then? or do these play nice?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, you are removing the checkstyle plugin. The fmt plugin more or less seems to use the same style then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The style is a bit different between GWT and google-java-format. What I like in google-java-format is that it also formats your code, similar to Prettier in JS land, or gofmt, rustfmt and the like. It's opinionated, you might not like it, but you don't get to bikeshed about it. YMMV
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FWIW this whole thing was intended for projects that are going to be maintained in github.com/gwtproject, so being a bit opinionated isn't a bad thing.
This proj is not meant to be a sample for how other people should write their own projects and "3rd party" libraries.
| <exclude>**/AUTHORS</exclude> | ||
| <exclude>**/*.xml</exclude> | ||
| <exclude>src/test/resources/**</exclude> | ||
| <exclude>src/main/resources/**</exclude> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should we modify the resources with license? in this case we can add a mapping resources like xml file and others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, i've heard some lawyers say that you don't need a header at all, as long as you have a license in the repo and in the META-INF or something.
The ones who tend to tell me that you should have a header on every file don't make exceptions... I'm not sure how we'd decide here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they do add the license header here though
https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/master/closure/goog/testing/dom_test.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See https://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html
The license recommends adding the boilerplate notice to each source file, but apparently also allows using a NOTICE file next to the LICENSE file. https://choosealicense.com/licenses/apache-2.0/ is more "liberal" in that it says the LICENSE file is enough, and the header in source files is only recommended.
I'd add the header to each and every file, including resources.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i will remove the resources exclusion, but should i also remove the AUTHORS and the xml exclusions too.
and i will appreciate a NOTICE file template.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think it is necessary to add a license header to the top of the AUTHORS file (usually just one at the root of the project, right?).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fwiw, never used it, but there's Spotless too that does both GJF and ensuring license headers: https://github.com/diffplug/spotless/tree/master/plugin-maven
Wrt AUTHORS, indeed it doesn't need a license header (it's also not subject to the license, as it defines who the copyright holders are).
Wrt NOTICE, we don't need it if we add the boilerplate notice to every file.
3 participants
No description provided.