OF-2716: Fix Licences #2367
OF-2716: Fix Licences #2367
Conversation
|
Flipping to draft, as Guus pointed out that I've missed all of the JSPs |
For files that have copyright assigned to some variant of Ignite, and where it should be Ignite Realtime Foundation, fix it. Mostly s/Community/Foundation
We want [YEAR] [OWNER], not the other way around
This file was missed in OF-65 / commit 324dd3b and was relicensed by Jive to Apache. This just fixes the header to reflect that decision.
…thers Just to aid scriptable checking. Also adds Ignite's contributions.
Adds better staged detection of wrongness, and starts with some autofixing of missing licenses
For JSP or Java files in the repo, detect and add missing license headers. Copyright headers are reconstructed from git history.
Some fixes, and target the script at Ignite Realtime Foundation being missing from the copyright line
…nse header Via script, add Ignite to the copyright line for Java and JSP files, using git history to calculate the correct years.
Fix an exclusion bug. Target fixing incorrect dates in Ignite's copyright line.
Via script, use git history to amend years of edits of the file
xmppserver/src/test/java/org/jivesoftware/openfire/streammanagement/StreamManagerTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Some consistency fixes to fix up some files that can't be automatically fixed, so that they can be automatically fixed. Add (C) after Copyright if its missing. Add All rights reserved at the end of the copyright line if it's missing
Via script, amend any items missing the (C) after Copyright, amend any items missing 'All rights reserved' at the end of the copyright line, then run other fixes now that they're consistent.
The script's auto-fixes highlighted that some files had incorrect attributions.
Fix more files that the script worked out were wrong, but couldn't fix automatically
Remove some redundant checks
xmppserver/src/main/java/org/jivesoftware/openfire/auth/AuthProviderMapper.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Is there value in retaining the If there is value in retaining it, I'd prefer it to be places somewhere away from the root directory - but my preference would be to not include it at all. |
|
We could put the script somewhere else. We could also put it in a different repo, or maybe a gist. I think we should keep it. I can imagine running it every few months and catching a few files that we've missed. I'd like a better approach than that though... We could wrap the script in a Github Action and test that the git diff is zero? |
|
Moving the script to a gist sounds fine to me. I really dislike additional hurdles for merging commits, and creating a Github Action comes dangerously close to that. I am confident that anything like this will reduce the amount of contributions that we get from third parties. In the end, I prefer to have a PR from someone that doesn't have an updated copyright header than not having a PR because people give up (or don't even start) because of checks for trivial conventions. This is my concern with anything that uses checkstyle too, for example. |
|
How do you feel about an action committing fixes automatically? |
Might be error-prone. I'm not against it, but I'm wondering if it's worth the effort. |
This PR should be rebased in, not squashed.
Updates copyright headers on files.