Open Stack

After talking to James Blair on IRC yesterday, I enabled H102 in the second
patchset (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/32461/1..2/setup.cfg) but forgot
to update the commit message.  I have just fixed that in the third
patchset.  Part of my original hesitation was in order to get more
feedback, as I don't want to dictate requirements but rather provide a way
to enforce the consensus.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:14 AM, Mark McLoughlin <markmc at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 07:52 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> > The current debate is whether or not this is defined policy. My feeling
> > was the results of the TC discussion meant that this was defined policy.
> > 95%+ of code files currently do this, it ensures that there is no
> > ambiguity on the fact that these files are under this license. Various
> > interpretations of copyright might say they are not required, but as we
> > have, by convention, already basically implemented this policy, I'd like
> > to just finish the enforcement in hacking so it's yet another thing we
> > don't need to manually review for.
>
> Agree, it's pretty clearly our de-facto policy that we include a license
> header in python files.
>
> Cheers,
> Mark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130612/6585575d/attachment.html>