[Review Required] Adding more file formats to license_header.py (.m, .mk, .R, .cfg)

[mbaijal]

Fixing Apache RAT failures - Part 1##

PLEASE HELP REVIEW! @bhavinthaker @gautamkmr
Added some file formats to the license_header.py script and then added the Apache license to the files that were failing the updated check.

For further details, Refer to this wiki -
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/MXNet+Source+Licenses

Checklist

Essentials

• Passed code style checking (make lint)
• Changes are complete (i.e. I finished coding on this PR)
• To the my best knowledge, examples are either not affected by this change, or have been fixed to be compatible with this change

Changes

• The main change is adding this to the license_header.py - '.m':'%', '.R':'#', '.mk':'#'
• Added Apache License Header to all .R, .mk and .m files using the license_header.py script

Please Review the following -

• correct comment markers are used for the new formats
• It is ok to add a license to these files (nothing will break)
• the updated files do fall under the Apache license
• Please help make sure that NO CODE has been affected in this PR (only blank spaces and comments)

Comments -

Also To be added to the script (in a separate PR after release)

• .proto
• Makefile
• .pyx

[marcoabreu]

Would it be possible not to change the whitespaces inside the codebase?

[mbaijal]

Changes were made by the script automatically. Let me see if it can be avoided.

[marcoabreu]

That'd be great, otherwise we could run into merge problems if this PR has to be reverted (think about the last case we've had when we were in Palo Alto)

[bhavinthaker]

I think the license_header script is doing the correct thing by removing extraneous white spaces at the end of each line of code -- I would +1 to having them removed.

[marcoabreu]

While I agree that it's entirely valid to format the code properly, I don't think that it should be part of a header insertion task to change the body in such a wide number of cases. What do you think about splitting it into two PRs? Am 18.01.2018 3:36 vorm. schrieb "Bhavin Thaker" <notifications@github.com>:

…

I think the license_header script is doing the correct thing by removing extraneous white spaces at the end of each line of code -- I would +1 to having them removed. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#9472 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ARxB66pfVu4AB7D1ajkrIAQTSQfS8IH9ks5tLq4WgaJpZM4RiL3L> .

[mbaijal]

@marcoabreu I agree with Bhavin. Since the license_header.py script is performing this blankspace stripping for all files in the src, its best to keep it.

Making a separate PR is not straightforward since git does not provide an easy way of only committing the non whitespace changes.

[KellenSunderland]

@mbaijal The issue that sometimes comes up with large commits is that when you squash two different types of changes together you make it difficult for other devs to merge the commit, and you make it quite hard to revert one of the changes at a later period in time. Given this I'd recommend splitting the whitespace changes into their own commit and then merging without squashing.

[mbaijal]

Thanks Marco, Kellen, Bhavin for your comments.
I created a new PR for the license updates that does not include whitespace changes.
#9499.
Do take a quick look to help review.

Closing this PR.