Re: [boost] Re: [regression] New Inspection Report -- License checks...

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 15:59:11

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:08:01 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote
> David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> > "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > 
> >>So if we wanted to filter down the report I suggest we throw out all the
> >>licensing issues...
> > 
> > I respectfully disagree.  Improving our licensing consistency is an
> > important goal for Boost, and leaving off licenses/copyrights is a
> > real barrier to adoption.  Let's not allow it to get worse, at least.
> 
> With that in mind I just changed the tests I run, again ;-) Now in 
> addition to the "regular" syntax, and copyright checks page:
> 
> http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/inspection_report.html
> 
> I added a different page for the license check:
> 
> http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/license_report.html
> 
> That way at least we know what's missing if anyone wants to work on 
> improving the situation.

Thanks that's nice.  I've been thinking about this more.  You will notice all
the 'issues' in date-time amount to code in the examples subtree and
documentation.  I've been resisting cluttering example code with copyright and
licensing stuff.  But now I'm thinking that this can just be tagged onto the
bottom.  I suppose docs are pretty much the same.

BTW, not to open the proverbial can of worms, but I'm betting inspect isn't
looking at .xml files.  And now that we have a fair number of xml files I'm
certain there are problems in there...

Jeff