New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Update license to EPL version 2.0 #943
Conversation
9cfa437
to
0510977
Compare
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ public void close() { | |||
*/ | |||
private static Object test() throws Exception { | |||
nop(); // assertFullyCovered() | |||
|
|||
try ( // assertTry() |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Change of header revealed following strange behavior of ECJ 3.12.1
that we currently use in tests:
compilation of
/* comment with 20 lines */
import java.io.Closeable;
class Example {
private static class Resource implements Closeable {
@Override
public void close() {
}
}
private static void nop() {
}
private static void example() throws Exception {
nop();
try( // line 35
Resource r1 = new Resource();
Closeable r2 = new Resource();
AutoCloseable r3 = new Resource();
) {
nop();
}
}
}
results in bytecode with following LineNumberTable
:
line 34: 0
line 36: 7
line 37: 16
line 3: 25
line 40: 35
line 41: 38
line 42: 176
however if first comment contains one less/more lines than 20
, i.e. try
keyword is not on line 35
, then LineNumberTable
is different - for example when method starts at line 35
:
line 35: 0
line 36: 3
line 37: 7
line 38: 16
line 39: 25
line 41: 35
line 42: 38
line 43: 176
notice absence of entry for offset 3
in the first case 🙃and presence of entry for line number 3
🙀
@Godin I hope our former contributors are o.k. with removing their names from source files. Do you know of a reasoning behind the removal at eclipse.org? |
@marchof AFAIK this "field" was always optional - here is the the oldest entry of Eclipse Project Handbook I can find: http://web.archive.org/web/20151106184324/https://www.eclipse.org/projects/handbook/ Projects are not forced to keep/remove it. However AFAIK it was well maintained only a long-long time ago, let's say in pre-Git history, and nowadays usually not maintained properly, i.e. not updated over time. I have feeling that the same in our case - value is only correct at a time of file creation, important and big file updates don't result in update of this field, and so that its current value is simply outdated in many cases. I propose removal because of this, and because all authors of all changes are anyway already properly recorded by Git, and also we do already mention contributors in changelog - search by "contrib" in it. And this way in future we only will need to pay attention on mentioning contributions in changelog, instead of reviewing header of each individual file. |
Can also make analogy with archaic javadoc tag |
@Godin Ok, let's make things simple and remove contributors from individual source files. Git history and change log should be enough. With some grepping
I come to the following contributors list in our sources:
Out of which the following people are not mentioned in change log (beside us):
I wonder whether we might create a separate contributors.html page. What about cleaning up contributors information in a separate PR? |
0510977
to
fc65d94
Compare
@marchof fine 👍 I excluded remove_optional_field.patch.txt from this PR. BTW don't know how/where you found as contributor
|
@Godin I should have excluded
|
After nice cleanup of information about licenses by #926 , #918 and #934, I propose to update Eclipse Public License from version 1.0 to version 2.0.
This requires
about.html
filesorg.jacoco.doc/docroot/doc/epl-v10.html
that contains text of licenseorg.jacoco.build/pom.xml
At the same time I propose to also remove optional
Contributors
field from headers.Changes are in separate commits to simplify review, but prior to merge should be squashed into single one.