dependency_data files do not need licenses #3772
Conversation
...on the basis that they only contain version strings, jar names, and SHAs that are obtained from external sources. Signed-off-by: Adam Farley <adfarley@redhat.com>
|
Do you need to remove some incorrectly added too? |
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A block has been put on this Pull Request as this repository is temporarily under a code freeze due to an ongoing release cycle.
If this pull request needs to be merged during the release cycle then please comment /merge and a PMC member will be able to remove the block.
If the code freeze is over you can remove this block by commenting /thaw.
adamfarley
dismissed
github-actions’s stale review
Block was incorrectly applied to PR for master branch.
|
@adamfarley Feel free to merge once you've addressed Tim's Q. |
I don't think so, no. I'm adding just one entry, and it exclusively covers a directory that contains sha256 files and version string files. I did review the rest of the list. Maybe you're suggesting that getDependencies should have a license at the top of that groovy file, and its entry be excluded here? I didn't think it did, as other groovy files in our repos don't have licenses (example). |
|
Thanks @gdams |
...on the basis that they only contain version strings, jar names, and SHAs that are obtained from external sources.