Skip to content

[FLINK-39007] Run RAT plugin in downstream projects automatically#52

Merged
ferenc-csaky merged 1 commit intoapache:parent_pomfrom
ferenc-csaky:FLINK-39007
Feb 2, 2026
Merged

[FLINK-39007] Run RAT plugin in downstream projects automatically#52
ferenc-csaky merged 1 commit intoapache:parent_pomfrom
ferenc-csaky:FLINK-39007

Conversation

@ferenc-csaky
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Key Changes

  • Add RAT plugin under build -> plugins
  • Removed setting inherited to false, as that setting forbids downstream project to execute the defined configuration here
  • Exclude test resources from license checks

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@leonardBang leonardBang left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

+1

@davidradl
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@ferenc-csaky I see the change is for the parent pom i.e. the Flink version 2 based parent we have just added. Can we add this to the version 1 and 1.1 versions which all the current connectors use?

@ferenc-csaky
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

@davidradl Since we do not have different branches for the parent POM state, currently we have the 2.x line and that's it. We can introduce different branches for release lines (or just create a tag from a local patch), but I'd start a discussion for that and the deatils in the dev channel. But personally I'd rather not.

This parent POM has 1-2 relevant changes per year, and those are pretty much dependency bumps, so keeping this simple and minimizing maintenance is more important IMO. I added a manual license check step to the connector releasing docs, which I would consider good enough.

@ferenc-csaky ferenc-csaky merged commit 6e1af16 into apache:parent_pom Feb 2, 2026
2 checks passed
@ferenc-csaky ferenc-csaky deleted the FLINK-39007 branch February 2, 2026 09:49
@davidradl
Copy link
Copy Markdown

@davidradl Since we do not have different branches for the parent POM state, currently we have the 2.x line and that's it. We can introduce different branches for release lines (or just create a tag from a local patch), but I'd start a discussion for that and the deatils in the dev channel. But personally I'd rather not.

This parent POM has 1-2 relevant changes per year, and those are pretty much dependency bumps, so keeping this simple and minimizing maintenance is more important IMO. I added a manual license check step to the connector releasing docs, which I would consider good enough.

OK sounds reasonable.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants