Open Stack

Ok, sweet. :)  I figured it was worth an email thread anyway, as that 
gives people a heads up that it's coming.

	-Sean

On 06/12/2013 12:51 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>


-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net